Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I have the figures from 2007-08 and they are exactly the same as those for DLA this year, whether that applies to appeals or to people wanting to make new claims. That was the main reason for introducing PIP. It is about clarity and certainty for both the claimant and the assessors, so that we can reduce any delays in reassessments and appeals.

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

The Minister will be aware that the opportunity to have one’s DLA reconsidered at the end of a fixed-term award is, actually, not an opportunity to cut the DLA. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that more than 12,000 people in the past year have had their DLA award increased at the end of a fixed term? Is that not something that the Opposition ought to bear in mind when they criticise us for cutting DLA?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct. If people are being reassessed or if their term has come to an end, they will be reviewed according to their needs now and many people will get an increased award.

Remploy

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

An announcement has been made and there is now a 90-day consultation to find out who would wish to take over the business as an ongoing concern; otherwise it is open for people to buy the assets to open up social enterprises, as has happened in Aberdeen and is happening in Wigan. I also wish to mention at this point that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there are 10,300 people with disabilities, while at the factory itself there are 37, and that last year alone Remploy Employment Services did find 169 people jobs. First we have to go through the process and see what we can do for the good people of Dundee.

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

Labour Members are very keen to list disability charities when they happen to be in agreement with each other. Having listened to Labour Members preach equality for the past hour on the previous urgent question, will the Minister remind me how many disability charities—and which ones—made a contribution to the Sayce review supporting the Labour party’s policy of segregated employment for the disabled?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. We are working with Atos to ensure that as many centres as possible have ground-floor, accessible medical examination rooms, but when they are not accessible, we will try to make arrangements with claimants to ensure that they have access to suitable locations for their assessments.

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

13. What plans he has to improve the Access to Work scheme for disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

We are undertaking a radical review of Access to Work so that it can help more disabled people into mainstream employment. We are implementing several improvements, including a fast-track assessment process and the removal of cost-sharing for small employers, as well as working with an expert panel to consider how the scheme can be further personalised and made to work more effectively for disabled people and their employers.

[Paul Maynard]

I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the Access to Work scheme. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the all-party parliamentary group for young disabled people, which I chair? One of its recommendations was that the scheme should be extended to both internships and long-term voluntary work placements. Will the Minister undertake to consider that recommendation?

[Esther McVey]

The policy intent of Access to Work is to support disabled people into paid sustainable work, and as such it is not offered for unpaid internships or voluntary work. However, from 1 October this year Access to Work has been available to young disabled people undertaking work experience under the Youth Contract. I would like to meet my hon. Friend to talk further about this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my coming into this new position. If Mr Speaker will indulge me, I want to say how delighted I am to be here, particularly at the close of the Paralympic games, which have been such a sensational success. As Sir Philip Craven, the international Paralympics president has said, these have been the greatest Paralympic games of all time, with more medals in more sports— 120 medals—for Team GB and record ticket sales of 2.7 million in London compared with 480,000 in Beijing.

Let me return to the hon. Gentleman’s question. I know how much work he has done on this and that he delivered a 100,000-signature petition to the Prime Minister. Further work and analysis is continuing to determine the stage 2 process for the Remploy sites. Work is going forward. He, like me—I have read the words he said—wanted a viable business. That is exactly right, and that is what we are looking for. Where there is a viable business, it will continue, because we are looking for sustainable, long-term employment for all those employees.

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

I, too, welcome the Minister to her position. Will she remind the House how many more disabled people will benefit from the transfer of funds from Remploy, which is getting more disabled people back into work than was the case under the previous system?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is quite right. At the moment, the money for sustained employment for disabled people goes to just a fifth of the number of people it should. We are maintaining the budget of £320 million and we want it to work more effectively for more people. We are aiming to have people getting sustainable work as we move forward.

Specialist Disability Employment

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman will know that a list of the factories that are affected is attached to copies of the statement. I am sure that Mr Speaker, who I know wants to make progress, would not have thought that reading out a list of factories was the right thing to do.

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

Does the Minister agree that young disabled people have higher aspirations than to spend 40 years of their working lives in segregated employment, shut off from society, being sheltered—what a ghastly, offensive phrase that is. Segregated employment has no role in today’s society. What we want is equality of employment rights.

[Maria Miller]

I could not have put it better myself.

Minister for Older People

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on securing this important debate, and I am glad to have an opportunity to raise the views of Blackpool here in the Chamber. Blackpool is in many respects a pensioners’ capital. We have just hosted the National Pensioners Convention, at which the Minister with responsibility for adult and social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), was due to speak. Unfortunately, however, he had to return to the Chamber to reply to an Opposition day debate. The NPC replaced him at the Winter Gardens with a cabbage. I am not sure what fruit or vegetable the pensions Minister might like to be represented by; he might tell us when he delivers his winding-up speech. I should warn him, however, that the banana has already been taken by the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), so it is off the menu.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) told us that his constituency had the most pensioners. I am trying to compete with him in that regard. As with most coastal towns, both Blackpool and Southend have large populations of retirees.

[Mr Amess]

Has there been any reaction yet among older people in my hon. Friend’s constituency to his winning the very special charity champion award last night?

[Paul Maynard]

Modesty forbids me from commenting, so we will draw a veil over that.

My constituency has the most people who live in a household with someone with a long-term medical condition, so carers policy perhaps matters more there than in any other seat. I am therefore as aware as any Member about some of the issues raised today.

In order to access carer’s allowance, people have to apply for pension credit, to which they may not be entitled. People might know that that application will be rejected, but they still have to apply in order to access carer’s allowance—an obvious anomaly in accessing benefits. Although we all know that many pensioners do not claim everything that they are entitled to, they are still not getting what they should be getting.

I know from my postbag and my surgeries that there would be no shortage of work for a Minister for older people. Almost every Government Department has some policy issue that matters more to older people than to any other group.

The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency is located in my constituency. I will spend the next three days attending various Blackpool veterans week events, because I know that matters, not least to my older constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North talked about the Arctic convoys medal, too.

Buses are another key issue, as in my constituency they are used predominantly by elderly residents. There are also complicated matters such as the past presence test, about which we are arguing with the European Union, as well as eligibility for benefits when abroad, and what happens when people return. There is a long list of such issues—and I have not yet mentioned long-term care for the elderly and the Dilnot report.

I am something of a nostalgia specialist. I like to look back at the first post-war Labour Government, and try to do so with a degree of fondness because they knew how to use royal commissions as a policy-making tool. They managed to secure all-party support, and produced some of our greatest welfare reforms. Sadly, the last Labour Government turned their back on royal commissions as a policy tool. I remember the royal commission on long-term care. It was a gargantuan exercise—voluminous, colourful, pretty—yet it was utterly ineffective because nothing ever happened after it. The journey to secure reform of long-term care has been long, arduous and, hitherto, fruitless, yet I retain some optimism that the current Government might find enough coins down the back of the sofa to get things right this time; I have my fingers crossed.

As well as the range of issues Members on both sides of the House have raised today, it should be stated that we face a demographic challenge, which we must overcome. It is time that we thought about setting up a royal commission on the consequences for this country of having an ageing population. It would cover a much wider remit than trying to solve a specific policy problem. It would assess what the challenges are and what they mean for every Government Department.

A key issue in this regard is the consequences of having a population that is—to put it crudely, perhaps—dying more slowly. We no longer die rapidly from heart attacks or other such conditions that might hit us in our prime. Now, the decline is much slower and gradual, and it is much more expensive for the taxpayer in providing appropriate care. That deserves some analysis.

The specific proposal to have a Cabinet Minister in this area is an interesting one. This question is not so much about policy towards the elderly, but about government architecture: how do we make things happen in government? As many have pointed out, we have Ministers for the disabled and for children. Both positions are at Minister of State level and both cross more than one Department. We also have a Minister for pensions—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench today—and a Minister for adult social care. Perhaps they could arm-wrestle each other for the title of being the Minister for older people. That Minister could sit across both the relevant Departments and perhaps could have the same effect that the Ministers for children and for the disabled are having. I do not think that someone needs to be in the Cabinet to achieve things. There is a grave danger of our being more concerned about the name and where this person sits than about what they can actually achieve. We have had a history of tsars—an entire palace of Romanovs was produced by the previous Government—all of varying effectiveness, which was often not related at all to where they sat or where their home was. What matters is what someone does.

It is worth looking at what is done abroad, because there are some instructive lessons. I do not normally take the French as a model of how to behave in any situation in life, but they have often had a ministry of solidarity between the generations, as they put it. That is an interesting concept. We often battle in this country, with some saying that the young are getting too many resources and others saying that the elderly are. That French Department tried to resolve the two, to bring them together and to work out how intergenerational solidarity is actually created. To be honest, I do not know whether it worked terribly well, but it is an interesting idea that is worth thinking about.

Australia has a Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, who is No. 2 in the health Department. So the Australians do have a Minister for older people, although some might quibble about the linking of those two things. In Ireland, Áine Brady, a Fianna Fáil Minister in the previous Government, was Minister for Older People and Health Promotion. Sadly that particular Government left office—it was not sad for the Irish people, as this is democracy—and the current Government decided not to retain that title.

I note that the Labour party has a Front-Bench spokesman on this specific issue. I can go as far as to welcome that, but I note that in opposition we had a shadow Minister for coastal towns and that role did not survive the transfer to office. It is far easier in opposition for people to create the architecture around what they want to campaign on, rather than around the architecture of the Government buildings that they then have to slot into. So that provides a good example, too.

The example I pray in aid in particular is that of New Zealand, which does have a Minister for older people, sited in its Ministry of Health. New Zealand also has an office for senior citizens, situated in its Ministry of Social Development. That is a particularly interesting combination. Before Conservative Front Benchers start to worry that I am proposing yet another quango, I can tell them that they need not fear as nothing could be further from my mind. None the less, what both Ireland and New Zealand had in common was that they had first developed what they called a “positive ageing strategy”. So before they appointed the Minister, they ensured that the Minister had something to do. One of my concerns is that if we have a general Minister whose objective is to proof all policies so that older people do not experience a disbenefit, we will end up getting a bit fluffy and soggy. I would far rather have a set of very specific areas that affect older people that the Government should be focusing on; these would be certain policy areas that should be driven through.

As much as I love the Deputy Prime Minister—I adore him, I swear I do—I know that he is burdened by trying to cope with the problems of social mobility, which are being discussed in Westminster Hall at the moment. I am not sure that I would wish to give him older people to deal with as well, because he has to fit in trips to Rio; one man cannot do everything, surely. Rather than simply nominating one Cabinet Minister and tacking older people on to the end of their responsibilities, I would far prefer it if we created a new role that had a very specific remit, that had a positive ageing strategy behind it and that had only a handful of specific policy proposals to see through. In this country, we do not define the remit of a Government Department closely enough. We have aspirations, but often they read to me as waffle. A good example is HS2. One of the Department for Transport’s goals is to introduce HS2, which is fine, but it never says why that is particularly important. It states the goal, not the reasons for it. I would far rather we had a much narrower focus.

I welcome the debate and think it is an opportunity to put dignity at the forefront of everything we do in government. Sometimes, I am disappointed that Ministers do not always have dignity at the forefront of their minds in every decision they take. We should not need a new Minister to achieve that, but if that is what it takes then so be it. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North on securing this important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The process that we have been undertaking involves all the individuals affected by the announcements that we have made. I have made it plain to the Remploy board that communication through this period of 90 days is very important; we have put a great deal of emphasis on that. Under the previous Administration, 29 factories were closed and none of them was taken forward outside Government control, whereas we are working hard and we have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses to move outside Government control. The House should welcome that.

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

Does the Minister recall that the Sayce review stated clearly that there was “total consensus” among disabled charities and organisations that Remploy factories were

“not a model for the 21st century”?

Does the Minister agree that placing a concrete cap on the aspirations of disabled people, as some Labour Members wish to do, is morally wrong?

[Maria Miller]

I have to applaud my hon. Friend for saying things that Labour Members sometimes do not agree with. He is very courageous in that. The Government have set out their commitment to equality. It would not be right for us to see an increase in the amount of money being spent on segregated employment if we have equality at the centre of our thoughts—and we do.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that cuts to support for disabled people and carers pose a potential risk to their dignity and independence and will have wider social and economic costs; regrets that the Department for Work and Pensions has dropped the aim of achieving disability equality; whilst recognising that the disability living allowance (DLA) needs to be reformed, expresses concern that taking the DLA from 500,000 disabled people and contributory employment and support allowance from 280,000 former workers will take vital financial support from families under pressure; expresses further concern at the Work Programme’s failure to help disabled people and the mismanaged closure of Remploy factories; notes the pressing need for continuing reform to the work capability assessment (WCA) to reduce the human cost of wrong decisions; agrees with the eight Carers’ Week charities on the importance of recognising the huge contribution made by the UK’s 6.4 million carers and the need to support carers to prevent caring responsibilities pushing them into ill-health, poverty and isolation; and calls on the Government to ensure reform promotes work, independence, quality of life and opportunities for disabled people and their families, to restore the commitment to disability equality in the Department for Work and Pensions’ business plan, to conduct a full impact assessment of the combined effects of benefit and social care cuts on disabled people and carers, to reform WCA descriptors as suggested by charities for mental health, fluctuating conditions and sensory impairment and to re-run the consultation on the future of Remploy factories.

Once upon a time, the Conservatives liked to tell us that we were all in this together. Those words ring rather hollow today. After a Budget that gave us the granny tax and cuts to tax credits while giving a tax cut to millionaires, I think we can assume that the Chancellor was simply taking us for a ride. Yesterday, Bob Holman—the man who introduced the Secretary of State to Easterhouse—said it all. He said that he now had so much confidence in the Secretary of State’s belief that we were all in it together that he thought the Secretary of State should resign. Today’s debate is about many of the people Mr Holman stood up for. They are the one in four of our fellow citizens who are not all in it together with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. They are not part of the Chipping Norton set. They do not get to go to the kitchen suppers. They are Britain’s disabled citizens. They are parents of disabled children. They are former workers, now disabled, who have paid in and paid their stamp and now find a Government determined to renege on a deal that they believed in.

In today’s debate on what I hope will be a consensual motion, there will be interventions from those on the Treasury Bench asking which cuts the Opposition support, and that is a perfectly reasonable line of argument. Let me deal with it at the outset. We do not believe that the spending review set out by this Government was wise. We warned of the risks of cutting too far and too fast. We also warned of the risks of a double-dip recession, and now we have one. The cost is astronomical. That is why the Chancellor had to explain to the House, in his last Budget, that he had to borrow £150 billion more than the Office for Budget Responsibility said Labour would have borrowed, as set out in our last Budget. In the Department for Work and Pensions, the bill for jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit is now running out of control as a consequence of the Secretary of State’s failure to get people back into work, and £9 billion more than was originally forecast is now projected to be spent. Someone has to pay that bill, and the Government—the Cabinet and those on the Front Bench today—have decided that it should be paid by Britain’s disabled people.

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

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the disabled. Will he explain why Labour supports segregated employment—apartheid for the disabled—in Remploy? Are the disabled community not full members of society too?

[Mr Byrne]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I will talk about Remploy at length later in my speech. I hope that he will intervene on me again at that stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

Those are precisely the kinds of worries that the House should reflect on because this is a very difficult and sensitive area of policy. The Government are not attempting to prosecute reform with any kind of consensus at all. That is why charities are resigning and resiling from their administration.

To the picture of ESA reform, I am afraid we have to add the Work programme. Once billed as the greatest back-to-work programme designed by human hand it is now missing its target for disabled people by 60%. Charity after charity says that the number of people referred to them for specialist help to get back to work is minuscule and tiny. St Mungo’s and now the Single Homeless Project have even gone to the lengths of resigning from the programme altogether.

This Government’s contempt is not reserved for disabled people without a job. There is plenty of it to go around for people with a job, including those Remploy workers in factories to whom the Secretary of State said, “You don’t produce very much at all. They are not doing any work at all. They are just making cups of coffee.” I hope that, in the course of this debate, the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to resign—I mean apologise. [Interruption.] I may not give way to calls on that point, but I congratulate the Sunday Express on its campaign, highlighting the disgraceful treatment of Remploy workers. We all know that Remploy has to change—that is the point I would make to Conservative Members—but this Government have decided to press ahead, closing these factories at breakneck speed. These factories are in constituencies where twice as many people as the national average are chasing every single job. How can it be right to say to these factories that they have until Monday to complete a business plan that, if it is not successful, will see the closure of factories in communities that need jobs and cannot afford to lose them?

[Paul Maynard]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another chance to answer the question put to him earlier. How many of these factories were closed under the last Labour Government? I know what the figure is; I wonder whether he knows what it is.

[Mr Byrne]

I will not deny the fact that a number of factories were closed under Labour, but that was part of a reform programme that saw £500 million added in support for the future of Remploy. The point for the House this afternoon is this: the time given to help Remploy factories figure out a future is too short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Eleven people are chasing every single job in my constituency, and there is no point in the Secretary of State going to Merthyr to tell people to get on a bus to Cardiff because there are no jobs in Cardiff either. After the last round of redundancies in the Remploy factory in the Cynon Valley in 1988, only one man ever found a job again. With unemployment now running at 9% in my constituency, I ask the Secretary of State again: where are the jobs? Tell us: where are the jobs for disabled people?

[Paul Maynard]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

My right hon. Friend speaks powerfully. This underlines the importance of a series of tests that the Government must pass on Remploy. I shall come to that, but I give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Maynard]

I am listening carefully and I promise not to intervene again. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify something for me? Is he arguing that disabled people should not be expected to be able to work in the wider workplace? The implications of that are a lowering of the expectations of the disabled community and suggest that all we all are fit for is to have a label placed around our necks and then be put out of sight and out of mind? Is that really what he is suggesting?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support families and individuals facing multiple disadvantages.

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

10. What steps his Department is taking to support families and individuals facing multiple disadvantages.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to support families and individuals facing multiple disadvantages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is true that voluntary sector organisations tend to deal with the whole person, rather than, like Government Departments and even sometimes local authorities, considering specific issues while forgetting that many of them knock on to each other. Such organisations have an important role to play. We should not ignore the fact that local authorities and Government Departments have to get their act together and make sure that when dealing with families with multiple problems, they talk to each other—always, there is a tendency for them not to do so. The good authorities hub up all the services around the family, which is at the centre, so Health, Work and Pensions, Education and all the Departments involved start to co-ordinate their activity, rather than spend all that money and get nowhere.

[Paul Maynard]

One of my wards, Claremont, is, according to the latest DCLG statistics, the fifth most deprived ward in the country, and I see daily the hurdles that families have to overcome to deal with some of the entrenched problems they face. I realise that no single agency can solve them, nor indeed can any single Government Department. Will the Secretary of State explain what he is doing with other Departments to ensure that all troubled families get a whole-of-Government approach, rather than a series of unconnected initiative-itises?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. That is why the Prime Minister asked specifically that Louise Casey operate and head up a unit, reporting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which is looking at the 120,000 worst affected, most difficult families. The idea, as I said earlier, is that, working with her, local authorities nominate the families. She wants them to hub up services to make sure that the pooled amount of money they get is spent on life-changing actions, not the tokenistic box-ticking that too often takes place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

20. What steps he is taking to reform bereavement benefit.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

A public consultation was launched in December 2011, seeking views on options for reforming bereavement benefits to ensure that they provide effective support to those who lose a husband, wife or civil partner. The consultation closes today and we will publish an official response to it in due course. That will summarise the comments received and outline the Government’s plans for reform.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Bereavements clearly cause a period of great stress for the families involved, and I welcome the Government’s review to ensure that we have a suite of payments that are fit for purpose and easy to understand. Will he bear in mind the problem that a number of my constituents have encountered, which they are struggling to understand? Benefits allowances are payable based on either the national insurance contributions of the deceased person or the widow’s or widower’s status, whereas the bereavement payment is based only on the NI status of the deceased person, and in the depth of their grief many people struggle to understand what seems to them to be an anomaly.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that different bereavement benefits, allowances and payments have different contribution rules. One of the issues on which we are consulting is whether they should be aligned in a more accessible way and although the consultation closes today, I shall take my hon. Friend’s question as a submission to it.