Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), when people are applying for ESA in the first place the Department obviously asks them to provide any medical information they think will be helpful, and as part of that process GPs are required contractually to fill in a specific form. Constituents should not be charged for extra information provided on top of that as part of their application. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give me the information, I will be very happy to look into the specific case he mentions.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that one major reason for inappropriate decisions is a complete lack of evidence submitted by general practitioners and hospital doctors, without whom no appropriate decision can be made? What views does he have on trying to encourage hospital doctors also to provide this information, to allow the right decision to be made first time around?

[Mr Harper]

Again, the rules are very clear: under a long-standing agreement, NHS hospitals and trusts are obliged to provide the relevant information free of charge and within 10 working days. However, from listening to my hon. Friend’s question it sounds as if he may have encountered at least one case where that has not happened. I will speak to him afterwards to see whether that raises any issues about whether this policy, which is clear, is actually being implemented by NHS organisations.

DWP: Performance

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He is the exception to what I am about to say, because he typified the thoughtful approach to welfare reform that is sadly lacking from the Opposition.

Opposition parties of all persuasions have the habit of falling into a trap. They lose an election and assume that it was the voters who got it wrong, not the politicians. They hope that in three to four years, the voters will see the error of their ways and return to the true path. They think that normal service will be resumed and that everything will be okay. That is what my party did after 1997. It took us many years to understand properly why the voters had rejected us.

Four years into this coalition Government, I fear that the same is occurring on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition still think that the voters got it wrong in 2010 and that all they need to do is oppose, oppose, oppose. We have seen no evidence of any alternative economic narrative to explain what happened before 2010. More importantly, we have heard no narrative on welfare reform. We hear clear criticisms. We heard a thoughtful speech from the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who made some useful points. However, I am still not clear whether Opposition Members want to see the reforms halted immediately or whether they want the implementation to improve. There is no clarity, just confusion.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in the area of youth unemployment. That is a concern of mine, because I represent a seaside town that has seasonal employment patterns. Yet what do we see from the Opposition? We see a jobs guarantee that shows no sign of not repeating the errors that made the future jobs fund expensive and that meant it was not a pathway into long-term work. Crashing into that policy comes a new punitive regime for those who are furthest away from work and have the most challenges to overcome. Despite that, they seem to be the ones who will be punished the most. It seems to be built in to the Labour strategy that there will inevitably be educational failure between the ages of 18 and 24. I cannot begin to understand that as a policy model. It fits with the critique by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) that these policies are not thought through or discussed, but are nuggets that are delivered for a Sunday paper. That really does concern me.

I understand that Labour has a paternalistic view of the world. It wants people to see that it has a cadre with a managerial attitude. It wants to ensure that there is a strong state with strong state institutions that will manage away the bad things in life. If only life were that simple.

If there is one individual who has done more over the past decade to understand the real nature of poverty in this country than anyone else, it is the Secretary of State. Despite what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said, he has dedicated the past decade or more of his life to understanding the true nature of poverty in towns such as mine. Blackpool has the fourth most deprived ward in the country and I see on a daily basis what poverty actually means for families in real situations. It is not something that I see in my surgery week after week, day after day. I always find it annoying when Opposition Members say that we have no idea what is going on. They should come and sit in some of my constituency surgeries. I offer real, practical help. I do not just read out examples in the Chamber of the House of Commons and say, “There you are. Get on with it.”

I want to make another wider point about Labour policy. The motion promises a guaranteed waiting time for personal independence payment assessments. It is hard to disagree with that. We have heard from both sides of the Chamber about delays to people’s assessments. It is fair to say that many people are still waiting too long. I recognise that the Government are seeking to do something about that.

However, I ask the Labour party to think a little more carefully about what it is promising. If somebody applies for PIP, there is no guarantee that they will have a face-to-face assessment. The moment one implements an arbitrary time frame within which that assessment should occur, one sets up a deadline. Whenever there is a deadline in the benefits system, there will be people who fall either side of it. It is like the unintended consequences to which the Chair of the Select Committee pointed. If there is a deadline and the assessment can be accelerated so that it is carried out within the deadline, we risk people having to go through face-to-face assessments who otherwise would not have to do so. We should all know from our constituency surgeries that such face-to-face assessments can be an ordeal, especially for those with mental health problems. I understand that it is a policy born of sympathy, but it has a dangerous element of the target culture within it.

From my point of view, it is far better to focus on the philosophy of continuous improvement that Ministers have adopted. We were grateful that the Harrington report came in and that it was followed by the Litchfield report. We have tried to act on all that and to make improvements in the delivery of benefits. Waiting times are coming down.

What worries me more than anything else is the constant and complete refusal by Opposition Members to countenance any sort of welfare reform. They regard opposition as an opportunity not to have to reform anything. What we are left with is a party that offers no analysis and no answers, and that, as a consequence, has no credibility on welfare reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Paul Maynard]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was extremely disturbed to hear over the monitors the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) describe cerebral palsy as an infectious disease, which implies that it can be caught by other people. That is not the case; it is a neurological condition. I wish to place that on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr Maynard, I think that you know that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but a continuation of debate in the Chamber. You have got your point on the record and it is now part of the debate. I am sure that others will want to clarify the position.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), I have a unique opportunity to examine the successes and failures of the complex system that this country has in place. Fundamentally, every colleague in the Chamber harbours the same desires: to protect those who are unable to work and to equip jobseekers with the skills and support they need to get into work.

With colleagues from across the House, I have sat in the Select Committee and listened to accounts of waste, error and fraud. I have listened to the accounts of people who, thanks to the system the previous Government presided over, have been taught that there is no opportunity for them. As someone who spent some time unemployed in my youth, I know how disheartening the situation can be, quite apart from the assumptions of a system that says, “Because you aren’t in work now, you never will be.” The accounts we have heard have shown time and again that reform is not only important but essential.

Certainly, the outlook is brighter for active jobseekers across Britain under this Government. Employment is now running at over 30 million, which is an increase of 1.7 million since the general election. On the day it was announced that private sector employment had risen by more than 2 million since the election, figures show that in my constituency the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants had fallen to a record low of just over 3%. That is a drop of 31% since I became the Member of Parliament. Running my annual jobs and apprenticeship fair, the third of which I held in May, is a great tribute to the jobcentres and the people who work in them, as was ably demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). They do an outstanding job helping the neediest people get into employment.

I have spoken in the Chamber before about PIP and how the Government’s reforms offer responsible protection for those who need it the most while supporting those who can move back into work. Let me first set out how this Government are committed to supporting those with disabilities. Last year in the UK we spent over £50 billion supporting disabled people. To better serve those who need support the most, we need to look at how to address people’s needs as they change. Some 71% of DLA claimants are given indefinite awards, with no need for reassessment, so it is no surprise that changes in conditions are not picked up. That means that people whose conditions improve are not identified and, crucially, that people whose health has deteriorated further are not given what they need. How can we be surprised that people feel they have been labelled as lost causes and written off, given that no one takes the time to see how their lives have changed? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) who gave an excellent example of what I am talking about.

DLA is clearly now an outmoded system that fails to address the needs of the people concerned. PIP will ensure that a responsible support network is in place to protect disabled people by providing regular assessments. That will mean that the proportion of people receiving the highest rate for both components will increase to 20% and that those receiving at least one component at the highest rate will increase to 56%. We are committed to a responsible transition, so the Government have set up, among other services, a dedicated phone service and electronic transfer of information, a streamlined assessment report form and a faster process for people with terminal illnesses.

The work capability assessment has also demonstrated the failings of the previous Government. The system was designed to ensure that those who are able to work get the help they need and that those who are too sick or disabled are fully supported. However, it proved unfit for purpose after its introduction in 2008. The hypocrisy of an Opposition debate about welfare should not be ignored, given that the Labour party left a 200,000-case backlog of employment and support allowance applications after its 13 years in power. As with the economy, it has been this Government’s job to fix its failure.

There are people who were written off by the state as unfit for work who are victims of poor assessments and a fundamental lack of support. Of those now accurately described as fit to work, 29% have been claiming incapacity benefit for more than 10 years and 10% have been claiming it for more than 15 years. The Government are committed to reviewing and continually improving the assessment process to make sure that nobody gets left behind. They are taking the vital steps needed to ensure that each person is seen as an individual. It is this Government who are making sure that each person has a place in our society. The message is: it always pays to work.

[Paul Maynard]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my zeal to correct the record, I inadvertently attributed the phrase “infectious disease” to the hon. Member for Hyndburn. I apologise to him; in fact, he said “incurable disease”. I place that on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Good. I am glad that has been cleared up.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am asking the Minister for guarantees that people’s independence will not be compromised under any future arrangements.

Disabled People Against Cuts calculates the existing annual cost of support at around £288 million, and yet the Government have only identified £262 million to transfer to local authorities. That discrepancy is not a good start. The Government are giving no reassurance that that money will be ring-fenced to spend only on support for disabled people to live independently, rather than be absorbed into broader council budgets.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the structure in which the funding is delivered is more important than the services being delivered?

[Nic Dakin]

Absolutely. It is the services that matter, but any change in structure needs to guarantee people’s independence in future. Tinkering with structures and risking people’s futures is not something that anyone can do at the drop of a hat. I very much agree that what matters is services, not structure, but why change the structure if it is delivering, creating all the uncertainty and concern that is around?

According to Scope, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets in the past three years alone, equating to 20% of net spending. That is happening when the number of working-age disabled people needing care is projected to rise by 9.2% between 2010 and 2020. In a recent survey, 40% of disabled people reported that social care services already fail to meet their basic needs, such as washing, dressing or getting out of the house, and 47% of respondents said that the services they received do not enable them to take part in community life. It is not surprising that people are desperately worried about their future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The biggest pressure on family budgets was the fact that far too many people lost their jobs as a result of the crash in the economy, in which GDP fell by 7.2%. Since then, we have reformed welfare. It is difficult when people are out of work, but we are doing huge amounts to get them back into work. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, more people are in work, more women are in work and more young people are beginning to get into work, so we are getting more people into a position to look after themselves.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Financial resilience for families in my constituency can be a real challenge. One of the biggest impacts on the family budget can be the loss of a loved one. Does the Secretary of State think it is now time to consider whether social fund funeral payments should be index linked to inflation to ensure that they keep pace with the cost of funerals?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am certainly prepared to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend if he wants to come and see me about it. I keep that area of the social fund under review, as he knows. We localised about £200 million of the social fund to councils so that they could deal with the problems people face directly. We also kept the remaining money, so a total of about £1 billion goes out to all sorts of things, such as funeral payments, support for loans and support for people in hardship. This is a big push by the present Government to help people ahead of payday lenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Assessments were brought in by the previous Administration—admittedly, in relation to the work capability assessment. So assessments are nothing new for this Administration, because the previous Administration introduced them. They did not do that very well, but we agree with assessments. Of course if someone is unfit for work, they can have a sick note put in while they are waiting for an appeal to go through—should that happen—and they will be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. I completely agree that anyone who has gone into hospital cannot be fit for work at that time, but let us hope that the hon. Lady’s constituent is fit and well soon, and can return to work.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the emphasis on continuous improvement in the Litchfield and Harrington reviews shows that any cumulative assessment is either impossible or meaningless? Is it not better to rely on the robust statistics on fulfilling potential as the measure of whether the Government’s policy is being successful in this field?

[Mike Penning]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and that is exactly what our plans are; that is what we want to try to do, and I look forward to working with him on this project.

Food Banks

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

That is a really important point, but some Government Members and Ministers have suggested that people go to food banks because the food is free. The welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud, says that there is an almost infinite demand for that but, as my hon. Friend points out, people have real pride and are ashamed to go to food banks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, those are sad stories and real lives.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

First, I would like a Government inquiry into food poverty. Secondly, can the hon. Lady tell me whether she believes that unmet need for emergency food relief is currently increasing or decreasing?

[Rachel Reeves]

The number of people going to food banks is increasing. The demand is there because they are not getting the support they need from the welfare state. The Red Cross, FoodCycle and the Trussell Trust are all saying the same. It would be useful if the Government published the report that they commissioned on the growing use of food banks.

What is the Government’s response to this crisis? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—it is nice to see him here—said on the radio this morning:

“There has been a growth in food banks, as they grow people attend them.”

In the world of the Secretary of State, the rise in food bank use to half a million people reflects an increase in supply, even though people need to be referred to a food bank—they cannot just turn up. The logic of this Government is like blaming the number of house fires on the number of fire engines. I say shame on the Secretary of State and shame on this Government. We have to ask how many children will have to go hungry this Christmas before the Government take action—before the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Work and Pensions acknowledge that there is a problem and then finally do something about it.

The charities, churches, community groups and volunteers who run the food banks show us Britain at its best—a country of generosity and solidarity, of one nation where people pull together to do what they can for the least fortunate among us. We should, and we do, applaud them, as many hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and, most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who spoke about the kindness of strangers. When the Prime Minister promised us the big society, is this really what he had in mind—homelessness rising, a boom in payday lending, more and more lives scarred by long-term unemployment, and half a million people relying on food banks to feed themselves and their families?

It is downright Dickensian, a tale of two nations: tax cuts for the rich and food banks for the poor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, as we in this Chamber look forward to Christmas, we must spare a thought for those who are not going to have any sort of Christmas at all.

DWP Offices (Fylde)

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to see so many colleagues from the Fylde coast here, particularly the shadow Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who has moved back one row following the previous debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who would have been here were it not for personal circumstances, would wish me to place on record his support for the points I intend to make today.

At a time of rapid changes in welfare provision, it can be forgotten that we need a large, active, professional and highly qualified staff to deliver those changes. The staff of the Department for Work and Pensions at the numerous sites across the Fylde coast perform with great professionalism, delivering consistently high levels of service against a challenging backdrop.

That backdrop is doubly uncertain because we know the rigours under which the Department is working. Its core budget is to be reduced by 26% by 2014-15, and corporate overheads are to be reduced by 40% by the same date. Clearly, that has resulted in some difficult decisions for Ministers and those who manage the service. As a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) in June 2011 demonstrated, the headcount at the three main sites on the Fylde has declined from 5,116 in 2002 to 4,600 in 2011.

That, of course, raises many questions in the minds of those who work for the DWP on the Fylde about what the future might hold. It is unsurprising—indeed, it is natural—that they wish to see more job opportunities come to the Fylde. I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that: it is natural to want more work to come to the Fylde.

In defence of the Minister, the last time I asked how many compulsory redundancies we had seen on the Fylde specifically, the answer was three. The headcount has reduced due to managed programmes of people leaving the service. We have been fortunate on some levels that the cuts on the Fylde coast have not been worse. We must recognise that there will be ongoing challenges. We cannot assume that because we have escaped lightly so far, we will continue to escape lightly in future. For example, we will shortly face the closure of the Marton Mere site, which will mean 300 jobs have to move elsewhere.

The purpose of today’s debate is not to rehearse statistics about job losses or even to demand extra work for Fylde, but to look specifically at how decisions are being taken about which sites are to remain open, which are to close and, most importantly, where to move the staff to from the three main sites. I may end up being arcane in a moment—those who do not live on the Fylde might think, “What is he talking about?”—but although the three sites are only seven or eight miles apart, getting from Norcross to Peel Park is a significant logistical challenge. It is not something that many people who live on the Fylde would voluntarily choose to do, but the decisions being made are forcing many people to make difficult decisions about whether they can continue to work at the DWP, given the caring responsibilities they have in their families.

In 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North secured an Adjournment debate on the identical issue of how decisions were being made about the Fylde. He was successful, in that he got the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), to visit the Fylde coast to look at what was occurring there. We were fortunate in that she agreed to appoint a “cluster lead” for the Fylde, who would have an overall perspective on what was happening on the Fylde coast. Each of the main sites would also have a site lead, who would feed into that pyramid process. The key point I want to communicate to the Minister today is that that model added value to decision making.

Let me also remind the Minister that we are looking at the future of the sites. The future can be a difficult concept in government—we do not know what next week will bring, let alone what will happen in 2018. Many at Warbreck house see 2018, when the transfer from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment will be completed, as something of a crunch point for the future of the DWP on the Fylde. Any comments the Minister can make about the future of Warbreck house in particular will be gratefully received.

Since 2006, we have seen natural wastage, as we would in any organisation. Cluster leads have retired or moved to other jobs, and the architecture has broken down. The decision-making process that made for better decisions has broken down. I shall take one, admittedly convoluted example, which might demonstrate my point. The decision was taken to wind down the most northerly site, Norcross, in September 2012. The last date of occupation was to be 31 August 2013, but on 18 December 2012, it was announced that some 220 staff would remain on the Norcross site at Tomlinson house, while the remaining staff would still transfer to Warbreck and Peel Park. Peel Park is the most southerly of the locations and Warbreck is squarely in the middle. Coping with the changes caused problems for our constituents. We were grateful that jobs were maintained on the Fylde, but the consequences of doing so were difficult.

More recently, the DWP announced that the landlord at Marton Mere wanted the DWP to leave the site, which meant that 265 people had to be rehoused, but there was great confusion. Marton Mere is nearest to Peel Park, at the southern end of the Fylde. There was uncertainty over whether the staff would move to Warbreck or Peel Park. No one could decide; there was oscillation between the two. In the end, the decision was made to switch from Peel Park to Warbreck, specifically because Peel Park had to accommodate those moving from Norcross. The most northerly staff had to go to the most southerly site. A cluster lead might have said, “Hang on a minute. Can’t we put the people nearest to Norcross into the spaces at Warbreck and accommodate the people from Marton Mere at Peel Park?” It might not have been possible, but at least a cluster lead and a system of site leads would have allowed such a debate to occur.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. I want to reinforce the point he is making. Does he agree that the complexities and difficulties in the area are exacerbated by the fact that public transport access to Peel Park is still problematic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Maintaining public transport links to ensure that staff can get to the new locations has been an ongoing battle. I was grateful to one of the Minister’s predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice—who was vociferous in saying that no change could occur at Norcross without sufficient public transport links. I agree that maintaining such links is a vital battle that we must hold.

The local branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union has informed me that, because we do not have cluster leads, there have been 35 local piecemeal meetings with different business units, here, there and everywhere, discussing all the different manoeuvres. A more streamlined system might have brought about not only a better decision, but a smoother decision that was less disruptive for those in the system.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, particularly given that today is Lancashire day. I agree with him about the context. I want to underline the fact that MPs in all parties have a good relationship with the PCS union. We have always had a practical and constructive relationship. There is a problem with the suggested moves. We are not talking about the most highly paid jobs in the DWP. Suggesting that people move around and deal with the transport connections on extremely low salaries is perhaps a major factor in causing a great deal of unease, particularly among those from Fleetwood employed at the sites.

[Paul Maynard]

I agree entirely. If I was minded to be cheeky today, which I rarely am, I would suggest that many of those making such high-level human resources decisions find it very easy to get to the locations on the Fylde, because they come straight down the M55 from outside the Fylde. They have incredible access, whereas those who live on the Fylde and have to move around it struggle the most.

I urge the Minister to look again at reappointing a cluster lead to ensure that any future changes are managed with a strategic perspective to avoid such piecemeal, unco-ordinated and occasionally contradictory decisions about where people are located on the Fylde. I do not mean to be critical at all; I just observe that the best use of the DWP estate must come from looking across the Fylde as a whole, from a Fylde perspective, not just from looking at the distances on a map between one location and another. A cluster lead could also lead the debate more effectively about how we best use Fylde recourses post-2018. Great concerns remain about what will happen to the staff in 2018.

Will the Minister look at whether the Ministry of Defence’s Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, which is based at the Norcross site, can be brought into the cluster discussion? The Norcross site encompasses both the MOD and the DWP, which are the two main Departments that employ civil servants on the Fylde, so if we are discussing the fate of civil servants on the Fylde, it seems eminently sensible for both Departments to be part of that discussion. I recently heard rumours—they are no more than rumours—that 50 people are being relocated to the SPVA from Liverpool to replace 50 casual staff taken on in the Blackpool area. Clearly discussions are still ongoing about what the SPVA does—I know that that does not fall under the Minister’s remit—but all that demonstrates once again that discussions are ongoing that have real consequences, but are not coherent.

We can all recognise that the DWP faces immense financial challenges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned, there is a strong cross-party, non-partisan relationship with the PCS on the Fylde coast. We always seek to do our best on behalf of those we represent. That is because they are doing a superb job, often on low wages and in difficult circumstances. Warbreck house does not have the most heart-warming of HR departments, to put it mildly. I have heard some appalling horror stories at times, but I want the civil servants on the Fylde to have a strong and vibrant future. A key part of achieving that will be to have a strategic cluster lead to enable the Minister to be confident that decisions take into account the reality of what is occurring on the Fylde, not just what a civil servant in Sheffield has spotted on Google Maps that morning.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to serve under your chairmanship with a new portfolio; I am in my third position in the past 18 months. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I understand he was first reserve or last reserve—whatever reserve it was—and it is right and proper that he was ready to represent his constituents. Given that this is a half-hour debate, he has done well to get colleagues from across the House to talk about this constituency issue.

As I am relatively new to my portfolio, a lot of what I say will have been written for me by my civil servants. I will challenge that as we go forward; if some of the things I say do not match my colleagues’ local knowledge, they should let me know. I intend to visit this wonderful part of England in the near future to look at the points that have been raised and carefully consider what we can do. I cannot draw a line in the sand on the Norcross site because demolition is taking place as we speak. I hope I can, however, alleviate some of my colleagues’ concerns about what is going on with other parts of the site.

I have a piece of paper in front of me from the MOD on the part of the site that is not within my portfolio. It has shared services from the DWP and the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, an executive agency of the MOD. That piece of paper says that that part of the site is not part of the redevelopment plans and is there to stay. It is a completely different set of buildings and their quality is completely different from the pre-war prefabs, which would have cost us a lot of money to refurbish and would not have given us any degree of longevity. I hope I can alleviate any concerns on the shared services.

The other thing I want to address is the concept that a civil servant is a civil servant. They are not completely interoperable. They are a bit like us, in many ways; there are many different sorts of MPs and we all do things in a slightly different way. Inside the civil service, people have specific jobs to do. It is not the case that because closer desks are available, those civil servants could have automatically gone to them. I know that it is logical that if there are closer desks, they should move to them, but it does not always work that way.

Given the skills that we need from civil servants in the Fylde, we could not just have moved them to the closer premises, not least because I have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that we get best value. If we look at how the Government estate, for want of a better word, has been managed and operated around the UK over the years, we see that there has been, to say the least, a lack of joined-up government, no matter who has been in power. That is because the estate is complicated.

Demolition is taking place on the Warbreck site. We are not the owners of the site, but we have a contractual agreement on the site. We have a financial interest in what is developed on the site, once it is levelled and redeveloped. After costs, we will get an income into the Department from it.

[Paul Maynard]

It is the Norcross site that is being demolished.

[Mike Penning]

As soon as I said it, I knew I had said the wrong one. It is the Norcross site; Warbreck is a completely different kettle of fish and we are using it to its fullest capacity.

Coming back to Norcross, which is what I was supposed to have been talking about, demolition has started and it would be expensive for us to row back from that. It would have cost in excess of £30 million to do it up to a standard that would have given us any longevity. It would have cost us £100,000, should we have had a problem.

The costs are immaterial—we are where we are. There would have been legal costs and a new negotiation, because we are not the freeholders but the tenants. An income to the Department is built into the redevelopment, although we do not yet know what the exact amount will be, because we do not know how the market will perform. There is an exciting future for the Norcross site and things will move forward. [Interruption.] This is where the note comes through saying, “Minister, you might have said the wrong thing.” The cost of redevelopment would have been £20 million, not £30 million as I said, so I apologise and put that on record.

The important point made by my hon. Friend was that we must work much harder on the concept that someone sitting in Sheffield, London or Timbuktu can look at Google Maps and think, “That’s a great idea. We’ll do it that way.” Anyone who knows my previous roles—I know that my hon. Friend was on the Select Committee on Transport—will know that when I made the decision on the future of the coastguards, I specifically did not do things in that way. I looked at the needs, where it could be done and the economic effects on that part of the community. I assure him that that is exactly what I will do as we move forward.

The debate on this topic back in 2006 or 2007, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace),was the right debate. He managed to secure a commitment from the Minister to visit. Ministers get huge demands on their time for visits around the country, but it is important that they are seen not to be London-centric—that they actually go out and understand what is going on in the community and see the effects of decisions.

I also want to praise the civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions. The welfare reforms have been a massive transformation. There has been a lot of uncertainty, which I fully understand, as we have moved from the disability living allowance to personal independence payments, but the civil servants have done a brilliant job and the enthusiasm I have found in offices around the United Kingdom has been overwhelming. They have asked for a chance to get on with it, because they now know where they are and how to move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating that success. I know that it is something in which he takes much interest and that he has helped greatly. I hope to hear many more stories like that from across the UK.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to offer more intensive support for new jobseekers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Conditionality measures were announced in the spending review to increase the support for jobseeker’s allowance claimants. Claimants will be asked to write a CV and register with universal jobmatch. Longer initial interviews, weekly signing and quarterly reviews with our advisers will provide more intensive support for claimants.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she reassure me that that conditionality will involve remedying deficiencies in what is often called work readiness, as well as focusing on the overall number of jobs for which a claimant applies each week?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is quite right that work readiness skills are key and that it is not only the number of jobs for which somebody applies that matters. Through the claimant conditionality and the longer intensive interview when a claim is made, the people at Jobcentre Plus will find out what skills the claimant needs and support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady has bounced across various subjects there, but may I just put on the record the fact that the Remploy factories had faced an uncertain future since 2008 and that her Government closed 29? We have sought to support the people involved in the best way possible, and so 925 out of the 1,325 are in work or training. We are talking about significant support and significant movement into work; the rate is higher than the one relating to regular redundancies. As I said before, the Work programme is working. It has significantly improved under my predecessor and we will continue that.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I welcome the information that the Minister has given about the role that Work Choice has played in helping former Remploy employees. Will she confirm that we have no plans, despite rumours I am hearing, to roll Work Choice up into the Work programme? Such an approach would lose the specialisation that has made Work Choice the success it has been so far.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. Work Choice has been a success. We are looking at the disability employment strategy. For the first time ever we are considering greater segmentation and greater differentiation, and the greater support that is needed. We have also engaged with business as never before. We have started a two-year disability confident programme, engaging with 430 businesses and 35 of the FTSE 100. We need employers to work with us to give these people jobs.

Disabled People

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman announce his intention to abolish the spare room subsidy. He also praised to the skies the Australian insurance model that has just been introduced. Is he therefore committing to the payroll tax increases funding that model in Australia? Have we just heard yet another spending commitment?

[Mr Byrne]

Of course not. We are saying that the idea of introducing holistic care, in the way the hon. Gentleman’s Department of Health colleague implies in the Care Bill, is something the Secretary of State could learn from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate—a debate that the Labour party has been running away from for far too long. For all its praise of Pat’s petition, which was placed on 1 November 2011, it took until 6 February 2013 for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), to have the courage even to meet them. When he met them, what did their website say? It said that he had promised them an Opposition day debate as soon as possible, before the Budget. The Budget and the spending review have been and gone, and now what do we see? It is a press release from the shadow Secretary of State claiming that he has dragged Ministers to the Chamber, but it is he and his Front Benchers who have been dragged to this Chamber by Pat’s petition, We are Spartacus and other extremist disability groups that do not speak for the overall majority.

Let me explain to Labour Front Benchers why I might have sympathy with their reluctance. The cumulative impact assessment is a very narrow tool by which to judge the contribution of the disabled community in this country, their potential and what they can achieve. I think that it borders on the offensive and would suggest that Labour look a little more widely.

Just last week the Minister for the disabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), published the final set of documents of the “Fulfilling Potential” report. I urge those who want a proper cumulative impact assessment to look at the technical annexe, which is a far more challenging set of indicators than a cumulative impact assessment would provide and a far more nuanced, reasoned view of what being disabled means in Great Britain today.

Labour’s empty rhetoric and its sole focus on benefits as a measure of the quality of life of disabled people do a disservice to the wider disabled community. We often hear Labour Members talk of their desire for welfare reform. When we drill down to what they mean, as we have tried to today, it is very clear that they want more money for more people. The do not understand the nature of reform.

Let me quote what one of our eminent Paralympians, Jonnie Peacock, who won so many medals last year, said on 8 September 2012:

“I did not think I should be taking DLA from people who should be getting it. There are people who should not be on it and are getting it, and there are people who should be getting it and are receiving nothing. The testing could be more secure and then they could award the benefits to the right people.”

I cite that because it is clearly not a pro-Government press release, but a middle-of-the-road assessment that the vast bulk of disabled people share about what is occurring in this country.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that people with disabilities are being disproportionately hit by the cuts this Government are making?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. What I will acknowledge is that we are going through a period of profound and challenging change. We as a Government are seeking to edge towards greater recognition of the social model of disability, and that means not paying attention to the labels that too many want to hang around the necks of disabled people.

The personal independence payment, for example, looks at how individuals cope with their own conditions and disabilities. It does not say, “Tick box x for condition y and you will get these benefits.”

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman does not understand what is in the assessment. It asks for very narrow yes or no responses that do not allow people to explain the nature of their abilities and disabilities.

[Paul Maynard]

I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the actual point of PIP; it is to look at how people cope with their conditions. They are given ample opportunity to submit evidence and we help them to do that in my constituency surgeries. I hope that Labour Members do so, too, rather than store up a treasure trove of Atos scare stories that make people more scared of attending an Atos appointment than they were before.

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Paul Maynard]

I have given way enough times and the shadow Secretary of State has had his opportunity. If those on the Opposition Front Benches paid more attention to the “Fulfilling Potential” report, they might be a little chilled by what they read. Page 34 states clearly:

“Young people’s aspirations can decline in response to their growing understanding of the world”.

Listening to Opposition Members, I am sure that young people’s aspirations will decline because of the negative messages they are getting. The report states:

“By the age of 26 disabled people are less confident”

about entering into the world. I think we should be celebrating the fact that this Government are taking steps on a broad range of measures—not merely disability benefits—that the previous Government never had the courage to take.

For example, consider a young person who wishes to go to university. Under the Labour Government they were scared to do so because they could not guarantee that their care package would be made portable. With this Government’s Care Bill, we are doing just that. How can we put a price on aspiration? How can we quantify hope? What do I say to disabled people using an organisation in my constituency that has just introduced a “Safe Journey” card they can show on trams to ensure that it pulls away more slowly and they do not get flung to the ground? How are such things incorporated into the precious cumulative impact assessment? So much that can be done for the disabled community will never appear in any impact assessment, but it can be reflected in what we are doing with the “Fulfilling Potential” initiative.

I begin to despair at so much of what I hear from the Opposition Benches and it makes me truly angry. I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work to try to improve awareness of disability hate crime. However, I react with fury to the reaction of so many Opposition Members when the reporting of incidents of disability hate crime increases because of work done by this Government, and the previous Government, to create an atmosphere in which people are more confident to report such crime. We are told that an increase in the reporting of hate crime is evidence of the Government’s war on the disabled. I find that disgusting. It is personally abhorrent that people should campaign in a partisan way on the backs of those in the most vulnerable section of our society, to make a partisan point. That does nothing.

The contribution of disabled people to this country goes far wider than the amount they receive in benefits. I recognise, however, that we cannot talk of aspiration or fulfilling potential if we do not have a stable system of state support. We are trying to ensure that the right people get the right amount of money to match their needs, abilities and aspirations to work, live their lives and fulfil their ambitions, not match the labels hung around their necks by the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). However, I have a sense of “Groundhog Day”, because the last time I rose to speak in a debate on this issue, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) were again the two poor souls who had been forced to stand up and try to defend the Government’s position. I am grateful for their contributions, although the other reason I have a sense of “Groundhog Day” is that I remember the same accusations being thrown around about extremist disability groups. Let us be clear who we are talking about.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

The hon. Gentleman should first allow me to spell this out for him, then I will be happy to take his intervention. Does he include in his definition of “extremist disability groups” Citizens Advice, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Margaret Blackwood, Leonard Cheshire, Capability Scotland, Scope and many others that have today supported the call made by Opposition Members? Although I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friends on our Front Bench for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, the praise should really go to those organisations, which have continued to champion the cause of people with disabilities. I hope the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys will now make it clear whether he thinks those organisations are “extremist”.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Lady confirm whether she has read the manifesto of the Campaign for a Fair Society, which wants to close down all special schools, all day care centres and most of the other segregated provision? Does she not regard that as extreme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I will deal with the question from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys first.

That wide range of views includes people who think that adults and children with disabilities and special needs should be shut away from society and protected, and those who think the complete opposite—that they should be fully integrated into society. There can also be a degree of tokenism, and we sometimes hear terms such as “real inclusion”, “rehabilitation” and “normalisation” being used. I do not agree with the stand that those people take. I note that the hon. Gentleman, in asking his question, did not answer my question to him.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona O’Donnell]

No, I have given the hon. Gentleman one opportunity to answer it. He had seven minutes in which to put the record straight, but he did not do so. I am going to make some progress now.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions does not like it when the human cost of the changes he is making are brought to his attention. We saw just how angry he can get when Owen Jones presented him with some case studies on “Question Time”. That is what this debate is about. I found it incredibly moving when my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked her question of the Prime Minister today and described someone calling her office who was feeling suicidal because of the impact of the changes. I am not for one minute suggesting that Ministers are wilfully causing that kind of suffering and harm, and, at times, I defend them in that regard. However, I get very angry e-mails using language that is inappropriate, even when attacking the Government, and the Government are going to have to acknowledge at some point that there is a very different feeling out there of the kind that we have never seen before. We are hearing that from Welfare Rights, from Citizens Advice and from the people who contact us and come to our surgeries. I would never have believed that, as a Member of Parliament, I would have to put in place procedures for my staff to deal with a constituent whom they believe to be at risk of taking their own life. At some point the Government are going to have to respond to that, not with anger but by taking seriously the impact of these changes on people with mental health problems.

I hope that the Minister will talk today about mental health champions, which were introduced as a result of the review, and that she will tell us what impact they are having. How is she monitoring them? I think that we have two for the whole of Scotland. Is there evidence that they are making a difference?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

I will not be sidetracked.

We have seen the number of people who signed Pat’s petition and the WOW petition. The Government’s response to the WOW petition—that they are limited in what cumulative analysis they are able to undertake because of the complexity of the modelling required—is revealing. There are organisations with limited resources that can put together a reasonable cumulative impact assessment. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the disabled have a range of experts they can bring to the fore to put together a cumulative impact assessment. Frankly, some of the excuses we have heard today give us an indication of why they do not want to do that.

I hope I am wrong, but the Under-Secretary will no doubt give us two justifications: that Labour did not undertake an assessment; and that it is impossible to do it. The previous Labour Government did not do it because they did not—no previous Government have—put together such a torrent of changes that will impact on the lives of disabled people. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State is so clear that they are positive changes, why is he running away from a cumulative impact assessment? He undermined the Government case on the impossibility of doing an assessment when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He said that cumulative impacts are a coalition initiative. Where is the initiative? If he is parading on 4 July that it is a coalition initiative, what has happened to it between 4 July and 9 July? Where has it gone? It has disappeared into the ether like some of his words this afternoon.

What we have heard today is the torrent of change, from the bedroom tax that will not provide an extra bedroom to accommodate equipment a disabled child might need, the families of disabled children who will be £1,300 per year less well off than they were under the old system, to the changes in ESA and the abolition of DLA, with no recognition that even those who are not “the most severely disabled”—the words the Minister will always use—still have additional costs because of their disability.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said that he was angry. I was sorely disappointed by his contribution, because he attempted to paint the people who want to talk about a cumulative impact assessment as extremists. I hope he is not saying that Disability Rights UK, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mind, Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Carers UK among others, including tens of thousands of people who signed Pat’s petition, are extremists.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the right hon. Lady answer the question her colleague could not answer earlier? Does she believe it is extreme to try to close every special school and every day care centre? Does she not regard that as extreme?

[Mrs McGuire]

With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman attempted to put everybody who has asked for a cumulative impact assessment into an extremist box. If he wants to debate exclusive and mainstream education, I suggest we have a debate on that. There are differing opinions, but disagreeing with him does not make someone an extremist. [Interruption.] I make an exception for the Secretary of State; there’s an extremist, on certain issues, if ever there was one! I ask him, is the Children’s Commissioner, who released a report only last month, an extremist? She said that

“families with disabled children are hit harder by the cuts under all disability definitions”.

It is not extremists saying this; it is not even just Opposition Members—a whole swathe of people are saying it.

This is not just about welfare benefits, and on that I almost agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys: this is not about putting disabled people into a benefits box. I agree that the social model is the right model for disability, but we cannot have a social model if people do not know whether they can have a spare bedroom for their wheelchair or if they do not have enough food on the table because money is being taken from them. [Interruption.] I do not know if the Secretary of State is contributing to the debate or just chuntering from the Front Bench. The DWP press office did not do Ministers any credit when it said:

“There’s a lot of alarmist stories about our welfare reforms but the truth is this Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people”.

It might look like that from the top of Caxton house, but it does not feel like it in the real world, as some of the testimonies we have heard today verify.

This country has signed up to and ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which I was delighted my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth raised. Is the Minister truly confident that such an onslaught against disabled people is consistent with our responsibilities under the convention, particularly article 19?

I wish to make a genuine offer to the Government that does not ask for anything more than we would expect from any Government: a true and accurate assessment of what their policies mean for the people they govern. We are not asking for coalition Members to vote against any major policy—although I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) say he had strong reservations about certain aspects of the policy—and we are not even asking the Minister or her colleagues to overturn any decisions they have made; we are asking why, if Ministers and coalition Members are so confident that their policies across benefits, social care, access to legal aid and independent living are right, the Government do not do what they should have done months ago and make use of the fantastic policy and analytical capacity in the DWP and the civil service. If it does nothing else, it might help the Prime Minister, who gave a wrong answer this afternoon over the impact of the overnight exemption from the bedroom tax on the families of disabled children. It might help him to understand his own policies.