Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who speaks with unrivalled expertise on these matters. I agree with his fundamental point. I speak to oppose Lords amendment 1, which seeks to amend clause 4, as passed by this House. I do so as a member of the Bill Committee that scrutinised the Bill—during 15 sittings or so, if I recall—last autumn. Clause 4, as passed by this House, introduces a new duty for the Secretary of State to report annually on two Life Chances measures: first, the proportion of children living in workless households; and secondly, as has been mentioned, their educational attainment at age 16. In effect, therefore, it repeals most of the Child Poverty Act 2010.

The Lords amendments in effect seek to replicate the parts of the 2010 Act that relate to the measurement of the proportion of children living in poverty. In particular, their lordships’ amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to report on four specific measures: relative low income; combined low income and material deprivation; absolute low income; and persistent poverty.

However, the Bill, as passed by this House, does not mean that the Government will stop measuring and publishing such data on household income. The Government will continue to publish annually low-income data in the HBAI publication. Those data include—Members may get a sense of déjà vu all over again—relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation. They probably ring bells, because those categories replicate almost exactly the measurements that the amendments from the other place seek to reinstate in the Bill. To put it simply, the Government are already doing it. The information is available for all to see and will continue to be so. The HBAI publication has protected status as a national statistics product and Ministers have undertaken in this House to publish the data annually. Lords amendment 1 is—I say this with the greatest respect—simply unnecessary. Its effect would merely be to replicate something the Government are already doing.

[Neil Gray]

My understanding, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, is that there is no statutory obligation for that reporting. There is certainly no statutory obligation to eradicate child poverty by a specified time, which is crucial.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

The Government have made a commitment to continue to publish the data annually. They have been very clear about that fact. When it comes to the relationship between those measurements and the eradication of child poverty, under the previous Labour Government the number of households where nobody worked doubled and in-work poverty increased: the Government missed their child poverty target by 600,000.

The Bill, as passed by this House, does not redefine poverty to exclude income, as some of its opponents often say. That argument assumes that measuring income is an effective, helpful or comprehensive way of measuring poverty in the first place. It is, in fact, none of those things. In that respect, the 2010 Act was flawed in its approach. The current income measures enshrined in the Act show that the number of children in relative poverty can actually go down in a recession and up in times of growth. That is simply perverse. Furthermore, the measures incentivise what is often known as a “poverty plus a pound” approach, where families can seemingly be moved out of poverty without any change whatever in the underlying factors that got them into the position of low income in the first place. The Act is simply not doing what it is intended to do.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend’s points. Does he agree that under current measures the only way completely to eliminate relative poverty would be to collapse the economy completely and make absolutely everyone poor?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

It sounds like my hon. Friend has been reading the Labour party’s manifesto. The 2010 Act is flawed, and in seeking, in effect, to reinstate its provisions, the Lords amendments are similarly found wanting.

Let us look at what the Bill, as passed by this House, actually does in its current format and why their lordships’ amendments are not in my estimation constructive in seeking to reverse these measures. The Bill enshrines in legislation the Government’s commitment to end child poverty and to improve children’s life chances. It focuses on the actions that we know will make the biggest difference to the life chances of children and young people—both now and in the future. We need measures that drive the right action to tackle the root causes of poverty rather than just tackling the symptoms. That is why the Bill introduces the new life chances measures of worklessness and educational attainment.

The Government’s policies in targeting life chances importantly look at outcomes, not inputs—it is a comprehensive approach—recognising that the real route out of poverty is through work, not welfare. Some 74% of previously less well-off, workless families who found work have escaped “the poverty trap”, if one can use that phrase.

The Bill seeks to replace the wholly arbitrary measure that a household is in poverty if its income is below 60% of the median wage. That is totally arbitrary. In a recession, with all households’ income tending to reduce, it gives the completely false impression that fewer households are in poverty because their relative income is seen to rise. It is totally perverse—a recession leading to less poverty. The figures simply do not add up. It is a discredited system, and it did nothing under the previous Government to tackle the underlying root cause of childhood poverty. I therefore submit that these amendments are wrong to try to reinstate that old discredited system. It beggars belief that some people believe that we can base our strategy for improving children’s life chances on income measures that would suggest that the last recession somehow caused a significant fall in child poverty. Of course we should not do so, but that would be the effect of the Lords amendments if this House accepts them.

[Neil Gray]

That is why, of course, it is important to have a package of measures, so that we can look at all aspects of how children and their families are living in poverty. We should not assess just relative low-income measures; we should include other measures such as material deprivation, which is critically important.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Material deprivation is one of the things that will continue to be measured by the HBAI statistics. It will still be included—[Interruption.] I am sure that the Minister will rise to her feet and reflect this fact; a commitment has been made that the measure of material deprivation will continue to be published annually. It will continue to be part of the official ONS Government statistics. The hon. Gentleman says that we need a package of measures, but that is exactly what we get. We get the HBAI information; we get those statistics; we get the commitment that these data will be published annually and enshrined, as I say, by the ONS. On top of that, we get what the Government suggested in the original Bill, which this House passed—further measures of attainment. We get the best of both worlds.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way again. He has already had a couple of bites at this particular cherry—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me gently say to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) that he has already given us the benefit of his views for no fewer than 19 minutes, by which I assure him we are all greatly gratified, but 11 Members still want to speak. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in trying to intervene, but I am trying to set out the context, and I know colleagues will want to be considerate of each other.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take what you say as a gentle reminder for me to move things on, too. I shall do so.

Moving households closer to employment is what improves the life chances of young people in the long term. That is why the Government are focusing on getting parents into work, and then getting their children into work through education. We are tackling the cycle of deprivation that has stifled the ability of too many children to reach their full potential for too long, and has condemned generation after generation to a life in which underachievement and a lack of aspiration become inevitable.

The Government are seeking to change that cycle fundamentally. We are committed to the far more effective approach of targeting the root causes of poverty, which include a lack of educational attainment and family stability. Work remains the best route out of poverty, and higher educational attainment is the best route into work. That is why the Bill that was passed in the House of Commons seeks to introduce two key measures of poverty, namely the proportion of children living in workless households and educational attainment at the age of 16. The Government are focusing on those factors because they have the greatest impact on child poverty and the life chances of children. The Lords amendments propose a reliance on spurious measures which will do nothing to tackle the problems at their sources. They are misguided, and we should therefore not support them.

[Alison McGovern]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling to speak in this important debate. I shall be as quick as I can.

Let me begin by pointing out to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that we already measure educational attainment, and we already measure worklessness. It is not a question of what we should repeat; it is a question of what matters. I shall not go into detail about the hon. Gentleman’s comments about “spurious measures”. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) will do that shortly, so I shall leave it to her.

I want to return the debate to the basics. What are we debating today? What do we mean by transparency in regard to child poverty? That is a very simple question about what we in the House believe poverty to be. Should it be defined as a measure of income, or as a measure of educational attainment or worklessness? We already apply those measures to other statistical estimates of what is going on in our country, but what does the law say about what poverty is?

I asked myself this question: does the amount of money that people have make them poor? Well, it seems obvious to me that it does. A parent—a lone parent, for instance—might not be well paid and might be unable to work many hours. That parent would not suffer from worklessness, but he or she would still be poor. A child might achieve great things at school, securing all the certificates and qualifications, and still suffer the effects of not having enough money at home. Plenty of children go to school, work hard and do well, despite seeing their parents suffer from the stress of trying to pay the mortgage or the rent, or not having enough money to put in the electricity meter so that they can wash their school uniforms. That happens to plenty of children. This is not about educational attainment or worklessness; it is about the fact that the cause of poverty is not having enough money.

Why does that matter? It matters because, in the coming years, the Tories are going to make people poor, and, specifically, they are going to make children poor. We know that, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us. Families will be worse off, despite the so-called living wage—many of them will be in work—and their children will be affected, whatever the qualities of their teachers at school, which may be legion. We have some fantastic schools in this country, which help children to achieve despite poverty at home.

The next question is straightforward: what should we do about the situation? The Government have made it clear that they do not think money makes a difference to life chances. I have made it clear that I think it does, but why would anyone listen to me? I am a Labour politician. However, there is independent evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned some of it in her fantastic speech, but I can add the information that Kitty Stewart and Kerris Cooper, of the London School of Economics, reviewed 34 studies of whether family incomes affected children’s outcomes throughout the OECD, and found that family income mattered. What is the point of having some of the world’s finest researchers if we do not listen to them? We know from an FOI request that of the 250 replies on the issue to Government consultations, only two agreed with their desire to forget about reporting on the income target. The vast majority of people agreed that money matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I would be very happy to look at this case with the hon. Lady to see what support we can provide her constituent. She makes an important point, which is that he wants to work and therefore should be supported to stay in employment, too.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People to North Devon next month for a Disability Confident event. Does he agree that these are very important events, not only for people with disabilities, to bring them closer to the world of work, but for employers, who do not realise what untapped talent there is?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am particularly excited about going to visit his constituency to support his excellent Disability Confident event, and I pay tribute to the other 48 MPs who came into our drop-in event last week and have committed to hold their own events in their constituencies.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Lady represents one of the areas that has been at the forefront of the pilot scheme and I hope that I will have the opportunity later to address some of the issues raised there. She makes a valid point that the economic recession hit people very hard indeed, and the people who were hit the hardest were those already in vulnerable employment—those in the most insecure jobs. Unfortunately, recovery just has not given them the job security that they might have hoped for.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making interesting points, but the facts do not quite support some of what she is saying. Is it not a fact that the universal credit system is incentivising people to get into work? The figures speak for themselves: 71% of universal credit claimants in the first nine months moved from welfare into work. It is working.

[Dr Whiteford]

The whole point that I am trying to make is that any progress that has been made will be undone if the Government remove the work incentive, which is the work allowance. It is the aspect of universal credit that makes it possible to earn more when they work. By cutting the work allowance, the Government are going to impose an eye-watering level of marginal taxation on people in low-paid jobs and make it harder than ever for those in low-income households to break out of the poverty trap. If the Government were serious about making work pay, if they were serious about boosting the UK’s productivity and if they actually wanted to help people get on, they would be increasing the work allowance, not reducing it. That would be a genuinely progressive measure, and it would actively help those in low-paid work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

When the Pensions Act 2011 was passing through Parliament, the Government made a concession worth £1.1 billion that reduced the period concerned from two years to 18 months. For 81% of the women concerned, the period will not be extended, and will be a maximum of 12 months. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government have no plans to make any further concessions.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

Does the Under-Secretary of State responsible for disabled people agree that, at a time when we are doing so much to encourage people with disabilities to participate in sport, it is a huge missed opportunity that not one of our inspirational disabled athletes is being honoured by the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I thought that decision was a disgrace. I was at the Barclays power of sport event on Thursday—on international day for people with disabilities—and there was collective disbelief among the great representatives of disability sport at that decision. We are not saying that people should always be guaranteed a win, but they should have been included as a consideration, because that is really important for inspiring the next generation.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (First sitting)

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Corri Wilson]

Q 29 To follow on from what Hannah was saying, given that the child poverty targets were unlikely to have been met, would it have been better to delay the targets instead of removing them?

Neera Sharma: Yes, the Government could have taken the opportunity to look at the timing and set interim measures and looked at the direction into the future instead of looking at abolishing them completely.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

Q 30 I want to move on to the changes in the Bill on conditionality for universal credit. I will be interested to hear your views on the impact that that will have. In particular, will you address whether you think any negative impacts that those changes might have will be to some extent mitigated by the changes to free childcare, with the Government’s proposal to double childcare to 30 hours a week? Is there a balance between the two?

Neera Sharma: We welcome the doubling of free childcare for families, which will help many parents to enter the labour market and progress with their careers. But we have a number of concerns, and one of those is around timing. The childcare Bill will come into force in September 2016, but the greater conditionality—full conditionality for parents of children aged three and four—starts in April 2016, so there is a six-month gap. In Scotland, the childcare provision will not take place until 2019, so there is a bigger issue for devolved nations.

We are concerned that there are timing issues. We are also concerned that the Government should look at what that 30 hours of childcare translates into: that it is available locally and appropriate, and that it meets the needs of vulnerable families—for example, parents who have got disabled children. Our services are telling us that it is difficult for parents in rural areas, parents who are vulnerable and parents with disabled children to access that childcare at the moment.

During the summer, and more recently, providers have also raised the issue of sufficiency and how they are going to meet the demand. For example, the National Association of Head Teachers conducted a survey over the summer, and two thirds of respondents said that they could not meet the extra demand, that they would have to reduce places by 25% to 50% and that that is going to be quite challenging. We are concerned about those points. There are childcare issues that need to be addressed in terms of timing and capacity on the ground.

Emma Stewart: From our perspective, we are concerned about the kind of jobs that are going to be available for low-income parents. We are also concerned about the kind of support that is going be available to address their specific needs in the labour market. There is conditionality for people who are out of work and there is conditionality for people who are in work, and in-work conditionality is relatively untested. Our anxiety is that it is going to be rolled out incredibly quickly, and DWP trials are not necessarily rolling out to test how it will work in time, with the introduction of universal credit nationally.

In terms of support and jobs, we work with very low-income women across London, and our experience is that the flexibilities that were available under lone parent obligations are being withdrawn. On the ground, the experience in relation to UC is going to be that, if you are in work, to move out of conditionality, effectively, you need to be earning the minimum wage in a full-time job. We know that a significant proportion of lone parents can’t have, choose not to have, and, ideally, do not want a full-time job; they want a job that is flexible to fit around their caring responsibilities. That equates, effectively, to a 22-hour-a-week job at £10 or £12 an hour.

The challenge in the jobs market, as it stands at the moment, is that there are very few quality flexible jobs available for parents to move into, so they are going to face impossible choices. Without some form of front-line support from Jobcentre Plus providers and Work programme providers, they are going to be faced with a very difficult choice: either go and work full time, which, when you consider housing, childcare and the taper rates that are being proposed, will not be considerably better for them, and they will be with their children less; or move into a part-time job, but the issue is that only 6% of vacancies available in the jobs market at the moment that offer a level of quality in terms of living standards have some element of flexibility from day one. So parents are fishing in a tiny pool.

So the issue is around having tailored support and brokerage on behalf of candidates who need flexibility through the mainstream system in relation to employers, as well as a recognition that there are bigger structural issues in the labour market that DWP needs to be talking to BIS about. That is really important.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Q 31 Could you also address childcare?

Emma Stewart: Our specialism is less in childcare than in the jobs themselves. From the front line, we know that our clients are not necessarily pursuing childcare, unless they know they can get the right kind of job. It is a slight chicken-and-egg scenario. The best way to incentivise parents is to support and encourage them, and to make available the kind of jobs that mean they can fit work with family life and still be better off.

[The Chair]

Helen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Q 33 My next question is: if you are an unskilled lone parent with a three-year-old and you are trying to find work, are you likely to be able to get work available during the day, or are you more likely to get the sort of work that might be early morning cleaning, bar work or zero-hours contracts where you are expected to be available? How does that fit in with setting up a new form of childcare?

Emma Stewart: At the moment in London, the majority—over half—of part-time jobs pay below the London living wage. A high proportion of them are precarious employment-related—zero hours or shift patterns. The challenge is multiple. There is sometimes no guarantee of regular work and regular shifts. It is very difficult to organise childcare if you are working in a supermarket and you do 9 am to 12 pm for three days and then 10 am to something else for the other two days. Retail works in such a way that shift patterns are often rotated on a monthly basis, so it is very hard to align childcare with certain sectors. We know that within health and social care, there are significant issues in relation to that type of work.

The conversation about part-time work needs to focus on permanent part-time work. There are huge wins for business to consider, in terms of how it can build efficiencies in the way that jobs are done and redesigned to facilitate better retention rates and better talent attraction rates. Even within lower-paid sectors, we know that social care is facing a huge nightmare with retention issues at the moment because women are not able to sustain the kinds of shift pattern that they are having to work and it is very, very difficult to find childcare arrangements. We also know that women in retail often share childcare with their partners and families, because it is just not possible to find the right kind of childcare.

Thirty hours a week in principle is fantastic, but when and how it is made available and how it is aligned to current employment patterns is critical. A classic example is summer holidays. We know from some recent research that about one in 10 parents leave their jobs in the summer because they cannot find childcare.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Q 34 Can I pick up on the issue of the proportion of childcare costs that are covered? It is currently about 70%, but under the new arrangements it will probably be about 85%—is that right?

Emma Stewart: Yes, that is correct.

[Hannah Bardell]

Q 35 In terms of conditionality, we have seen a gradual creep down in parents returning to work. We are talking now about women having to return to work when their baby is a year old. That is surely going to have a huge impact on parents of very young children, as will the sanctions attached to it, and a disproportionate effect on children. Under the UN convention on the rights of the child, it will be potentially devastating for not just families that are out of work, but families that are in work.

Neera Sharma: Barnardo’s are really concerned about the impact that the conditionality and the sanctions will have. We have already seen families being sanctioned, losing benefits for a number of weeks, being driven to food banks and being driven into debt. We would like the Government to carry out a broad independent review of how sanctions are operating, and that is something the Work and Pensions Select Committee asked for in March 2015. We think that needs to happen as quickly as possible, because there is no doubt that sanctions will increase after bringing the age down and extending conditionality. They have increased by 4% from 2009, and that trend could continue under these new proposals.

Jobcentre Plus are responsible for handing out the majority of the sanctions. Jobcentre Plus are under incredible pressure due to their staffing and capacity, but we also know that they are not particularly well set up to cater for vulnerable families. For example, our services in Scotland are telling us that parents have to take young children into Jobcentre Plus with them when they job search, because there is no alternative. There are no toilets available, and if they are late, as recently happened to a family in Fife, they are sanctioned. A mother went into a Jobcentre Plus. She was 10 minutes late, was sanctioned for four weeks, got into terrible debt and had to rely on a food bank. We have to avoid punishing families as a result of losing their income. A loss of income is not the only way to enforce conditionality. There is a need to urgently review and look how sanctions will operate and how they are operating now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Q 38 Are parents and independent advisers aware of these flexibilities and able to encourage, in the negotiation of the claimant commitment, that the lone parent should raise these issues and talk to the jobcentre adviser about them?

Emma Stewart: How information is cascaded is really challenging within Jobcentre. We know that the Government have lost their ability to run campaigns effectively, but some investment is needed into how parents are made aware. For us, the issue of local enterprise partnerships, devolved activity, and how local authorities and LEPs work together at a district level to ensure that communication is made available to advisers is important. It cannot all be centralised.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Q 39 Picking up on the point about the support that is available for lone parents at Jobcentre Plus, we have seen a steady increase in the employment rate among lone parents. Is that because the advisory role being undertaken by Jobcentre Plus is working?

Neera Sharma: I believe that in some areas it is working, but there are huge geographical variations, especially for parents who have been out of the labour market for a long time or for vulnerable parents who may have disabilities or have a child with a disability. It varies incredibly from one area to another. Also, advisers have quite a lot of discretion in how they support families and deal with conditionality and sanctions, so I would reinforce Emma’s point around better training and guidance for staff in Jobcentre Plus, especially in their dealings with families who are vulnerable. They will see more of those families seeking their advice as the conditionality of parents with younger children starts to commence.

Emma Stewart: Can I just add that we have also seen a large increase in in-work poverty? The data on more lone parents working is clearly true, but the extent to which they are working in sustainable, quality jobs is not yet fully evidenced. We know from Work programme sustainability rates that the churn is still quite high for lone parents who are moved into work and moved off benefits, but then come back on because they find it hard to sustain a job as it is not paying enough.

[Priti Patel]

Q 40 As part of universal credit, DWP is looking at how best to support claimants who are in work but are low paid, and there are trials under way already. Emma, you mentioned that more work could be done, particularly working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and employers. What are your thoughts on that? What practical advice and support could be put in place, and what more could employers do in this space?

Emma Stewart: Government can lead by example; that is a practical thing. Government at local authority and centralised level can advocate, and, as an employer itself, operate an approach where it embraces flexible hiring, so that it would be open to applicants for its own vacancies on the basis that it consider how, when and where jobs are done from day one and not from 26 weeks, which is the big shift that we are looking for.

In terms of what it can do to engage with employers through the LEP model, which is in principle employer-led, there needs to be more focus and more of a driver to embrace the need to think about flexible labour markets, to encourage flexibility, and to wrap that into commissioning. A practical thing could be done through Universal Jobmatch when someone tries to apply for a job. At the moment, if an employer tries to log one, there is no real prompt to say, “Would you consider flexible hours in this job?” That is a simple tool that can be implemented quickly.

In terms of engaging with employers, the challenge around in-work progression is a difficult one, but we do not think there is a legislative answer. It is about encouraging employers to see the business gain. BIS has done lots of good work on the legislative side of things, but needs to think about how it can create an argument, engage business and highlight good business practice in this space. We have a lot of employers who we work with via the jobsite and recruitment agency who are doing this, but there is still a big attitudinal issue that flexibility goes the wrong way for business.

Welfare Reform (People with Disabilities)

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this important debate on a subject in which I take something of an interest.

I would like to reflect on the language that we use. This is an emotive and emotional subject for many people, so it is important that Members from all parties get the language right. I must say that I do not recognise some of the language being used to describe the Government. I certainly would not want to sit as part of a Government party that had those sorts of feelings and thoughts, and I really do not believe that we have. It is wrong to suggest that we in this party have that sort of thought, because we really do not. I do not recognise that at all.

I am very aware of the strictures of time, Sir Roger, but I want to say a few things. It seems to me that the holy grail is to help people with disabilities off welfare and into work. That would be a useful direction for this discussion to go in. It is vital that where people are able to work, they are given the opportunity to do so. The Government should support them along that road as much as possible. I am struck by the fact that today there are 320,000 more people with disabilities in jobs. That is extremely significant.

Of particular significance for me is those with mental health conditions who are getting back into work, because I have some relevant experience. I worked for five years as a manager in an office where we made particular provision to ensure that we could employ people with mental health conditions. A lot of it is to do with understanding the individual—there is no one-size-fits-all solution. By being understanding and putting into place some very personal provision, we were able to ensure that people felt that they were able to work for us and that they were not disabled by their disability, if I can put it like that. I am a big believer that it is vital to help people off welfare and into work where that is possible. I really want to explore that further, as will my hon. Friend the Minister, I am sure.

The Government have introduced a number of pilot projects, which are to be welcomed. For too many people with disabilities, it is simply too difficult to get into a job. In addition, an episode of mental ill health can set people back disproportionately compared with people who have physical health ailments. Until now, the system has not recognised that sufficiently. The Government are now introducing a number of evidence-based pilot projects to try to see how people are being assisted and how we can help them more. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister on that, because it is really important.

The Disability Confident events have been mentioned already. They have been hugely constructive. I am looking to organise one in my North Devon constituency, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will be looking to do the same in their constituencies. The events do what they say on the tin: people with a disability need to be given the confidence to get off welfare and back into the world of work. That is vital.

I believe that the Minister and the Government will be doing good work in this area. I cannot second-guess—any more than the Minister can, I suspect—what our right hon. Friend the Chancellor is going to say in the Budget statement a week from now. Nevertheless, from my conversations with the Minister, I know that he and the Government are absolutely committed to doing their best.

I bring my comments full circle by saying that we really need to be careful about the tenor of the debate and the language used on all sides. I look forward to hearing in positive terms from the Minister about the welfare reforms and how they will help disabled people, particularly those with mental health conditions, to get off welfare and back into work. That is our holy grail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Lady’s views. PIP is a far better system than the former DLA. Under DLA, only 6% of people had a face-to-face assessment, 50% of awards were made with no medical advice, and 71% were allocated lifetime awards, even though one in three cases would change within 12 months—often getting worse, so that people missed out on the appropriate support. We are right to push this and I will continue to keep a close eye on the improvements we have made.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to his post.

My constituency has many isolated rural and coastal communities. What is being done to ensure that assessment centres are more accessible and flexible for people in those communities?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question: he is a real champion for his constituents. We have added an extra 200 assessment rooms. People who find it difficult to reach an assessment room can travel by car as long as it is within 60 minutes; by public transport if it is within 90 minutes; or, by prior agreement with the assessment providers, they can have taxis provided and paid for.

Personal Independence Payment Applications

Peter Heaton-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson]

My job is to continue with the roll-out. Greater minds than mine are continuing the discussions, and it may well be that welfare powers will be devolved, but we will leave it to the greater minds that represent us both to decide that.

Average claimant waiting time has been reduced by around three quarters since June 2014, so we are now looking at a new claimant waiting just five weeks for an assessment, with reassessments down to four weeks. Crucially, the median time for the whole journey, end to end, is now 11 weeks, which is a considerable improvement. Having cleared significant amounts of the backlog, we expect to be operating as “business as usual”. That is very welcome. The end-to-end time for terminally ill people, which was highlighted, is now down to six days, with 99% of claimants awarded.

I am conscious of time, so will try to rattle through—

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?