Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend clearly highlights the difference between the two parties. Labour spends a lot of time on bluster while the Government are focused on getting the job done for the people of Great Britain.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that those who will benefit from this exception from the 1% rent reduction during this year of consideration include those fleeing domestic abuse, and that it affects homeless provision and housing for ex-offenders as well as supported housing for older and disabled people? Does he recognise how much this will be welcomed by many of us? Will he pay tribute to those who are working with him on it, including Homeless Link and St Mungo’s?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A large number of people provide phenomenal services, across the sector and across the country, in working with the most vulnerable. We are keen to work with them to make sure that, as we have said all along, the right protections are in place for the most vulnerable people.

Let there be no doubt: this Government will always protect the most vulnerable and provide them with the support they need and a safe home to live in. We are a one nation Government. We want everyone to have the opportunity to live happy and fulfilling lives, whoever they are and wherever they live. We want workers to earn a living wage and benefit from our strong economic growth. We want to support aspiration, boost productivity, reward work over welfare, and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned in their own pockets. That is our new settlement for Britain—to keep moving from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-welfare country.

On this journey, we will, I repeat, always support vulnerable people and make sure they have a safe home to live in. The whole House should support that aim. Instead, Labour Members are resorting to their favourite tactic of scaremongering for a short-term political headline. It is time to stop that kind of poor politics. It is time to stop playing politics with the lives of vulnerable people while we are working to help to provide the support they need and deserve—and we will provide it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

No, I will not.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, these are difficult decisions. In the short term, they will deliver £240 million in savings. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that in the long term, they will save £1.1 billion. We have to do this, given the fiscal inheritance that we took on.

The Government have a responsibility—it was a manifesto commitment, so there is a mandate from the people of this country—to deliver welfare reform. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is no longer in his place, but if Labour Members really believe, after reading the report by Deborah Mattinson on the BritainThinks focus group, that the Labour party will ever be trusted on the economy, and particularly on welfare, with the policies it is pursuing—the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) knows that this is the case—they are completely wrong. They have to understand that completely opposing everything the Government do on welfare reform, in favour of more spending, more taxing and more debt, will never deliver another majority Labour Government.

I say gently to housing associations that the 1% cut in rents will have a direct impact on all their tenants in general needs housing. There will be a 12% reduction in average rents by the end of the Parliament. We give £13 billion a year to housing associations so that they can discharge their duty to house people. They have to raise their game and meet the challenge. This is not often commented on, but housing associations are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We need to see that they are as efficient as possible. They are very efficient when it comes to campaigning against the Government, but they are not so efficient in resource allocation to deliver front-line services to the most vulnerable tenants.

[Richard Graham]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that over the past five years, large sections of the public sector have stepped up to the plate, delivered more for less and executed changes that have saved the taxpayer money and helped the public finances, and that housing associations should be able to follow that example?

[Mr Jackson]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

There will be an impact assessment and an evidence-based review of the whole assisted and supported housing regime. We do not know what the final decision will be, but it is for local housing associations to stop complaining and to work with planners, developers and other key partners, such as those in the national health service—

Access to Jobs: Disabled People

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

Part of the reason why I secured this debate is to point out the failure of Government policy and the way in which it affected Margaret, who worked for Remploy for 26 years. Since the Prime Minister and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government decided to close Remploy, making Margaret redundant, she has not been in employment for a single day and has not been offered a job.

Rather than being a taxpayer, Margaret now lives on benefits. She has an income from the disability living allowance, and she receives an enhanced level of mobility allowance—£57.45 per week—and the middle-rate daily care component of £55.10 per week. She has even been refused employment and support allowance. When the initial assessment was made, she received no points. Even on appeal, she was given only nine points. She needs 15 points to qualify for the allowance. How can the disability benefits system present a case such as Margaret’s? She wants help to work and has been disabled from birth, but does not qualify for the benefit put in place by the Government supposedly to support her into work. What does the fact that the taxpayer is not supporting Margaret in her attempts to find work say about the Government’s policy?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is telling a powerful story about his constituent, Margaret. Is he aware that in Gloucestershire we recently launched a programme called Supported Internships? Remploy was a partner, as were the local authority, the local further education college and two employers. Supported internships are an effective way for people with significant disabilities to get back into employment.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I have no doubt that they can be, but I am afraid they are not happening.

The 2014 labour force survey recognised that,

“disabled people remain significantly less likely to be in employment than non-disabled people.”

There is a 30.1% gap between levels of employment for disabled people and non-disabled people. I welcome any efforts to find internships and support individuals into work, which is what we all want. Margaret was in work when the Government decided to close Remploy factories, and we were told at the time that they would support those disabled people into jobs in the mainstream. When Remploy in Wrexham was closed and Margaret was put out of work, we received all sorts of assurances about how disabled employees would be helped into the mainstream jobs market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) on securing this timely debate. Like him, whenever I think of Remploy, and particularly its Croespenmaen factory in my constituency, I feel anger, because I remember standing in the factory canteen on the day when it was announced that the Remploy factories were going to be closed. Some people were in tears and many were angry, begging me to save their jobs, but there was nothing I could do. That was one of my worst days as a Member of Parliament.

When that factory was under threat in 2007, the Remploy workers and the management did not sit back and protest. They went out and found business in the market. Indeed, one of the last acts of my predecessor, Lord Touhig, in 2010 was overseeing the signing of a contract between the blue chip company BAE Systems and Remploy to provide packaging.

What made me even more angry during that period was not only all the hard work that had gone to waste, but, as I mentioned in my intervention, what happened when the Welsh Assembly asked whether the Westminster Government would consider devolving the budgets so that it could provide a future for Remploy. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to look at it. Unfortunately, the question was met by the Department with a big fat “no”.

The comment by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at the time that Remploy workers were only good to make a cup of coffee rubbed salt into the wounds and was absolutely damning. I try to hold back my anger when I think of comments like that. There was never an apology, and I am ashamed to say that that man is still in post.

I will, however, say this: there is nothing that can be done about Remploy now. It is no good looking back to the past. Those factories are gone. The workers unfortunately do not have a job, as in the case of Margaret, who my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham spoke of. She has no future and is parked, like many of my constituents who worked in Remploy on employment and support allowance.

The worst thing is that, according to the solicitors firm Leigh Day, one in five people who have disabilities and find themselves in work still believe they are under pressure and under duress, and are fearful of announcing that they have some sort of disability. People who have short-term disabilities, such as those who have been diagnosed with Crohn’s or colitis, find themselves in disabling situations where they cannot work and find it difficult to come back to work. They rely on understanding employers, but many of them do not have that. Many of them find themselves out of work because of that.

I always want to give the Minister some suggestions, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) did; he made a very good speech and spoke from the heart, with great knowledge as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I think the Minister knows what I am about to say, as I have said it to him on a number of occasions until I am blue in the face: the main tool for getting people back into work—Jobcentre Plus—is not fit for purpose. I am basing that not on anecdotal evidence but on the fact that 80% of people who gain a job through Jobcentre Plus are back out of work in six months. The fact is that statistical evidence shows that the most effective systems are not provided through Jobcentre Plus but based in the community. A job club or a training scheme based in a local library or supermarket is more effective.

Anybody who has ever had to walk into a jobcentre will know that it is akin to walking through Pentonville prison. There is a security guard on the doorstep. The seats are screwed into the floor. If someone is not there on time, the adviser will sanction them. They are not good places to look for jobs. What jobcentres are essentially doing when they sanction people is reaching at the most vulnerable. Those who are stuck in the system are being pushed further into it, and they are not being provided with the help and support they need. I have said over and over again that it does not matter how many schemes we have.

[Richard Graham]

Has the hon. Gentleman had the experience I have had of a really good Access to Work programme provider—in my case, Pluss, which has had considerable success in helping people with disabilities back into work? Does he agree that one thing we might do is put together some films of agencies and businesses that have had real success, so that we can show them in Parliament and spread the word about some of the great success stories, to encourage other employers to do more?

[Chris Evans]

I have come across Pluss. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I was once the unsuccessful candidate in the constituency of Cheltenham, right next door to his constituency. The work that Pluss does is absolutely fantastic, and I agree that we need to do more inside and outside Parliament to promote such training organisations.

The point I was coming to, which ties in well with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, is that since the 1970s we have had 43 schemes in this country, introduced by Governments of all colours, and all of them have failed. Long-term unemployment is still stubbornly high, particularly for young people and those with disabilities. We now have to think outside the box. We can rebrand all our schemes—whether it is the youth training scheme, employment training, the new deal or even the Work programme—but they are not getting the outcomes we want.

I expect the Minister to defend Jobcentre Plus, which is a Government scheme; that is his right, but I want him to give people some hope that we will start thinking outside the box more.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

We seem to have had endless debates on universal credit over the past five and a half to six years, and I am sure that we will have many more.

This Opposition day debate was opened with a call from the shadow Secretary of State to reverse the work allowance changes in universal credit. I sensed that he really wanted to reverse every welfare cut that has been made by this Government and their predecessor. After all, he and his colleagues opposed every penny of savings put forward by the coalition Government. However, he cannot do that, partly because he stood on a manifesto that would have reversed only the smallest welfare savings, such as the spare bedroom subsidy, and partly because he signed up to £12 billion of welfare savings. He did not tell us today that his party would reverse all the changes if it were elected into government, nor how he would find the £12 billion of savings.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

We will keep his windy eloquence for a moment, if that is all right. He had quite a long go earlier.

The reason the hon. Gentleman said nothing about that is that if there are no changes to tax credits or housing benefit, he will not find £12 billion of welfare savings. I suspect that either he has no policy at all, because none was announced today, or that he has something pretty horrific to say on housing benefit that the House needs to hear.

After the windy eloquence of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), we heard the relative still small voice of calm of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who described universal credit as a sensible idea whose implementation was a shambles. I would describe universal credit as an inspired idea, but it is one that the former Labour Chancellor, the former Member for Edinburgh South West, described as too complicated to be taken up by his party. I agree that the implementation has been over-optimistic so far, but it is happening and I have seen it happening. I will come on to that, because I am not sure how many Opposition Members have gone to their Jobcentre Plus to find out how it is working. It is already delivering positive change to the lives of my constituents and many other people. One can criticise a project that is delayed, but that is happening and successfully so, when one said that it was impossible to do it at all, but it risks looking like carping, which is not really worthy of the right hon. Member for East Ham.

The truth is that Labour Members cannot make up their mind whether to say that universal credit was a bad idea, full stop; that it is a complete or partial shambles; or that it was a good idea, but they are not sure whether it will be a shambles. They half hope that universal credit will collapse, so that they can criticise it more and call again and again for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to resign, but they know in their heart of hearts that they must support universal credit because it is the right thing to do and it will completely transform the working opportunities of so many people in this country.

The reason why universal credit is right is absolutely clear to all of us. When tax credits were introduced, they were a modest cost to the taxpayer, but that cost ballooned from £6 billion in 1998 to £28 billion by 2010. As I have hinted, the former Chancellor and former right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has described more eloquently than any of us here today could how that project ran miles away from its original intention. Something that was launched with the best of intentions—to help people on low wages—became a massive cost. It was not just a cost in itself, but generated huge interest costs that were simply unsustainable for this country, particularly after the great recession of 2007 to 2009.

In their heart of hearts, everybody in this House must recognise that universal credit is the way forward. I cannot believe that anyone here today who has been a Member for more than a few years has not received letters from constituents describing how their life on welfare makes it impossible for them to want to go to work, because they would be worse off working. I also cannot believe that Members here have not had meetings with employers in their constituencies at which they have described the number of times they have offered people who work for them promotions or a higher salary, only to be told, “Sorry, I don’t want that promotion. I would be worse off because I would lose more in benefits than I would gain from the promotion.”

Tax credits ended up as a disincentive to aspiration and achievement. Scottish National party Members may shake their heads, but that is the truth. What is also true, unfortunately, is that the welfare programmes that were introduced by the last Labour Government ended up, during the great recession, when 6,000 people in my constituency lost their jobs, many of them low-paid, trapping people on welfare with no incentive to go back to work. That is the background to the debate on universal credit. It is vital to our country that it works properly.

Those of us who have been to our Jobcentre Pluses where universal credit is being rolled out know that it is in place and working very well for single people. In Gloucestershire, it has not yet been introduced for families with children where there are two people who are in and out of work or in low-paid jobs. That is the more complicated element of universal credit. If my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are able to add more about the success of the rollout of universal credit to more complicated families with children, it would be reassuring for everyone. I have seen it in place in London and it seems to be working well.

I am conscious that there are time limits on us, so I will bring my contribution hastily to a conclusion. There are 156,000 people on universal credit who are receiving their benefits effectively. As I say, the people I have met in my constituency are definitely in a better place than they were. It is vital that universal credit continues to move forward as quickly as possible. I suspect that the figure of 156,000 will advance rapidly during this Parliament. We should all wish universal credit well. The changes that we are debating today are all part of a move towards a higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare society and away from what we were left in 2010, which was wages that were too low, taxes that were too high, unsustainable welfare and a system that was no longer working.

Let me finish by saying that I understand the emotional appeal of the speech by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, but it is vital that we reduce the cost of tax credits and the cost of welfare, and that we provide people with a system that incentivises them to work through universal credit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I would like to start by reassuring the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that I think universal credit is a total and utter shambles. I invite him to my constituency to speak to my constituents who are claiming benefits, because all of them are already in work. Tax credits did not stop them from going to work; tax credits incentivised them to go to work. He needs to visit constituencies in London to find out the truth and to dispel the myth that people claiming benefits are just scroungers. They are working hard; it is just that work does not pay.

[Richard Graham]

I have never said and would never say, and I do not believe anyone in this House would say, that people who work or do not work are scroungers. That is way beyond what I was implying. Let me put the record straight.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Gentleman certainly implied that in my opinion.

In January 2012, a considerable period of time before I entered the House, I listened to the Secretary of State tell the House in departmental questions:

“Universal credit is on track and on budget.”

Several years later and several billions of pounds of expense to the taxpayer later, his claim that

“I am not complacent about delivery”—[Official Report, 23 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 8.]—

has not stood the test of time. Millions of families across the country, and especially in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, have faced periods of relentless anxiety over the future of their welfare support. The year 2015 did not bring any fresh hope.

The Work and Pensions Committee’s report in December revealed that the roll-out of universal credit, from Royal Assent to resolving the final outstanding legacy payments, could stretch beyond a decade. The Government promised that universal credit would reach 4.5 million people by the 2015 general election. This has not happened. The Secretary of State may be content for his Department to cruise through endless periods of trial and error, but the delays to the roll-out have been at a significant cost to the taxpayer, with the Major Projects Authority revealing an increase of £3 billion in the past two years. The bill now stands at a staggering £15.8 billion. If the Secretary of State truly understands the pressures faced by claimants, he will apologise for the years of anxiety his delays have subjected them to.

The autumn statement fundamentally contradicts the Secretary of State’s ridiculous claim on “The Andrew Marr Show” that “nobody loses a penny” through the changes. They also mark the end of the Chancellor’s ludicrous claim at the Conservative party conference that the Tories are the new workers’ party. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cuts to the work allowance are so severe they will mean that single people and couples with no dependent children will lose out the moment they start working. Just listen to the facts: the poorest 20% are on average set to lose between 6% and 8% of their income. Just listen to Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who stated that 2.6 million families will on average be £1,600 a year worse off. Further to that—this point was made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)— we know that transitional protections for claimants moving from the old system to universal credit will provide only £200 million against a background of £3 billion of cuts. Transitional protections are dropped when a claimant’s circumstances change. We know that new claimants will have no protection whatever.

[Richard Graham]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the IFS has actually said that anyone transferring on to universal credit will be protected and will not be worse off in cash terms?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises some fundamental points. Our staff are trained not only to support claimants with mental health conditions during their job search but, importantly, to provide more expert advice and support should they need it. To return to my earlier point, claimants are asked to meet only reasonable requirements, taking into account their circumstances and capabilities and, of course, their mental health conditions.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the Department’s recent decision to trial a yellow card system for 14 days for those being sanctioned in various places. I also welcome the Department’s decision to place advisers at several food banks, to trial whether that would also help with some of the benefits transition problems. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Department to have enough evidence to share with us the outcomes of the trials?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right: the trials are important and are bringing together more support and advice for individual claimants. I would expect to see more information and details of the trials early in the new year.

Young Jobseekers

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that example. Apprenticeships provide many opportunities for young people.

This was the subject of the debate last night. One young person, whom I will faithfully report, said the rate paid is too low. Perhaps that is a topic for a long debate another day. None the less, there are many opportunities out there for earning while learning, and that package can be very attractive to young people who are looking to take their first steps and find their first opportunities.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a leading light in helping young people to find worthwhile employment. She is right to focus on apprenticeships. The increase in the level of apprenticeships in Gloucester almost directly mirrors the drop in youth unemployment from 1,000 to 250 over the past five years. I suspect—my hon. Friend might want to comment on this—that the employment figures for Europe will show a similar correlation in the countries that encourage apprenticeships, such as Germany and us, and those that do not. Will my hon. Friend say something about the fact that, although there are minimum rates for employing apprentices, there is no maximum rate? Many of us who have our own apprentices pay significantly over the minimum rate.

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for that point, which stands by itself so I shall welcome it and move on to the need for a strong economy.

The single best way to get young people into opportunities is for there to be lots of opportunities to start with. The Government have overseen significant private sector job growth, and the economy continues to grow. More jobs have been created in Britain recently than in the rest of Europe put together, and that is undeniably good news for a generation of young jobseekers who can look to a brighter future.

We need to connect young people to those opportunities—here comes the meat of the debate. A local example illustrates my point. I founded and run a project called Norwich for Jobs. In 2013, I looked at our local unemployment figures for those aged 18 to 24, and I knew that 2,000 unemployed young people was too many. Drawing together a team that could do something about it, we set about halving that number. In fact, we smashed the target we set ourselves in less than two years. So far, we have helped nearly 2,000 young people into work. About 600 still claim jobseeker’s allowance, and we want to encourage employers to give them opportunities now.

We did that by encouraging local employers to create opportunities; connecting young people with those jobs, with the jobcentre at the heart of the process; and focusing the community on a common goal. We are taking on a new challenge after having met our first target, and we are now using the power of that local network to help those claiming employment and support allowance—in other words, young people who want work but have a health condition or a disability. I strongly support the Government’s clarion call to be disability confident, and I call today on Norwich employers to consider what more they can do.

We are turning that one city project into a regional movement. The Norfolk and Suffolk youth pledge, led by the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, is a further strong example of the kind of collaboration that stands the best chance of helping young jobseekers. The pledge is that every young person in Norfolk and Suffolk will get the personal support they need to get an apprenticeship, training, work experience or a job within three months of leaving education or employment. The New Anglia skills board and Jobcentre Plus have been working closely with the two county councils, and indeed with me and others—I am on the board of the project—to develop the project. We are building on the successful roll-out of the MyGo service—the first of its kind in the UK—which was launched in Ipswich in 2014 and the project I outlined in Norwich. I am proud of that project, and hope it stands as an example to other hon. Members of what they can convene in their areas. Research by the Found Generation holds up MyGo, a youth employment centre that was the starting point of the Ipswich project, as a very powerful project.

How best can we help young people? I said that we should grow the economy and make connections. We should also share good ideas, which is why I have talked about those examples. I mentioned the all-party group on youth employment, and I welcome the members who are here today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and for Bolton West (Chris Green). I welcome their presence, because we aim to share good practice. Our primary objectives are to promote youth employment in all its forms and the role of young people in the economy, to ensure that young people’s voices are heard, to highlight the need for good-quality opportunities and to share best practice.

We should value good-quality research and learn from it what we can do better. I will draw on two reports. YMCA England, of which I am a parliamentary patron—I am also patron of the Norfolk organisation—produced a constructive and practical research report, which I have in front of me, entitled “Safety Net or Springboard?” Its purpose

“was to examine how the social security systems could be transformed to better enable young people to find employment and fulfil their potential.

High levels of youth unemployment are not a new problem in the UK. While the global recession saw a significant jump in the number of young people facing unemployment, in reality, the upward trend started long before the financial crisis, as far back as 2004.

Given that numerous governments have tried a range of schemes to battle this problem with only mixed success, this research sought to give young people a voice in shaping any new approach offered, including the introduction of a Youth Obligation, a back-to-work scheme announced by the Government as part of the Summer Budget 2015.

Through a series of focus groups, young people from YMCA identified six areas they believed job centres could improve to increase their prospects of finding employment:…Understanding young people’s circumstances…Listening to young people’s aspirations…Supporting young people to look for work…Getting young people the right skills and qualifications…Securing young people with meaningful work experience”

and

“Retaining support for young people transitioning into employment.”

The evidence in the report is based on a series of focus groups that took place this summer across England in areas that many hon. Members here come from: north Tyneside, Birkenhead, Grimsby, Derby, Birmingham, Bedford, Dartford, Westminster, Horsham, Exeter and my own constituency of Norwich. The YMCA found that:

“The overwhelming feelings expressed by the young people participating in the research were ones of frustration and dismay towards job centres and the support they currently provide in helping to find employment. More than nine in 10 of individuals taking part in the focus groups believed the support they were currently or previously receiving from their job centre was not helping them find employment. Through the research, YMCA sought to understand why this alienation exists between young people and job centres and to identify what measures they felt were necessary to transform the job centre and the wider social security system from a safety net to a springboard into employment.”

I want to be absolutely clear that I have the highest respect for Jobcentre Plus staff. As my local examples demonstrate, I work closely with the team in Norwich and East Anglia, which is led by the excellent district manager Julia Nix. I see their dedication, innovation and hard work day in and day out.

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. He makes the same point as I do. The best officials in the jobcentre are highly respected and are known for their work in the community. Their passion shines out and they embody the values of public service at every opportunity. They also take a hands-on approach, which is perhaps over and above the duties of a civil servant. They could well be expected to do their work from behind a desk, but the best officials do not do that. They go out and work hard in the community to get results. I welcome hearing my hon. Friend’s local example.

It is in that spirit that I mention the YMCA research today, because civil servants of the calibre of which we speak will want to do even better. The report states that

“many young people are continuing to be prescribed the same generic support, regardless of their circumstances and aspirations. This is creating a significant discordance between how young people view the service being provided and what governments believe they offer. While examples of good practice do exist, the research illustrates that these are few and far between”.

Let’s share the good ideas and let’s do better. The YMCA research proposes that the new youth obligation be matched with an obligation on jobcentres. It argues that the obligation should commit jobcentres to providing each young person accessing its services with a more detailed initial assessment with a closer focus on their personal circumstances and aspirations, a specialist youth work coach, more comprehensive sign-on sessions, more regular opportunities, better training and work experience, and options to discuss how available funding may be used to let them participate in training. The report also suggests that people should be able to participate in training for more than 16 hours a week without their benefit claims being affected.

I want to quote some of the young people in the research. Charlotte of Norwich says:

“I want the job centre to be a bit more understanding.”

Jordan of north Tyneside says:

“The job centre needs to stop treating everyone the same.”

Marcio of Bedford says:

“The job centre needs to really listen to young people to see what we want.”

Other voices in the report tell us why we must collaborate locally to bring about the chances that young people need. Another young person from Norwich says:

“Everyone is looking for experienced workers, but how are we going to be experienced workers when no one is giving out experience?”

Another from Norwich seeks more “volunteering placements”. I suspect that organisations listening to today’s debate may want to continue the digital debate and explain exactly what they can offer in terms of volunteering opportunities for young people up and down the country.

I would also recommend that Members take a look at the work of the Found Generation, as mentioned earlier. It is another extremely practical group that asks young people for their own solutions to the problem of young unemployment. In July 2014, it published “Practical Solutions to UK Youth Unemployment”, a report asking for four things. First, it asks that we expand

“the use of public sector procurement to create jobs for young people”,

which I note that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is now doing. Secondly, we are asked to back

“a national ‘kitemark’ to recognise ‘youth friendly’ employers”

and I note that at least one organisation, Youth Employment UK—the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group that I chair—is already doing so. Indeed, hon. Members can qualify for the award, as I have. I am a recognised youth-friendly MP.

[Richard Graham]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on securing the debate.

Youth, the state of being young that is between childhood and adulthood, used to be relatively carefree. In some senses it is now extending—something I say as a mum, as well as an MP—with more and more pressures on us, and people of middle age such as me seem to be on an eternal quest for youth.

In my constituency the good news is that 226 young people are now claiming JSA, which is 49 fewer than last year. The figure seems to be going down—that is a reduction of 18%—although, as we have been cautioned, we do not know how many of the jobs are zero hours or casual and the like. Those “young people” are 18 to 24-year-olds, but there are often different measures of what we mean by young.

We have two Jobcentre Pluses, one in Acton and one in Ealing Broadway, but what I wanted to flag up is the fact of conditional welfare arrangements, or ones that require people to behave in a certain way and involve the application of sanctions or penalties if they cannot. From the figures that I have seen, such benefit sanctions are disproportionately affecting young people under 25—another different measure of youth—although that might include the homeless and the vulnerable. In the past year two reports have come out, one from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and one from Crisis, with everything pointing in the same direction.

Young people account for the largest proportion of JSA claimants who are sanctioned, with two thirds of all sanctions applied to claimants under the age of 35—another different measure. We do not know the precise reasons—perhaps young people have more erratic lifestyles—but they need to be looked into and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments, because such a situation might lead to a vicious cycle. Those sanctioned might stop seeking support, hardship might result, people might fall out of the system altogether and, if they have dependent children, the sanctions might affect those third parties as well. It may be a case of unintended consequences, who knows, but it needs looking at, in case that group is suffering some kind of direct or indirect discrimination in the benefit system, leaving them more vulnerable to sanctioning, even if they are equally as compliant as others. That work needs to be done, because there is a concern, especially when the group faces challenges such as high rents and so on in a constituency such as mine.

According to the same YMCA report that the hon. Member for Norwich North cited, “Safety Net or Springboard?”, more and more conditions and expectations are being placed on young people applying for benefits. She also mentioned that young people want more personalised and meaningful support; they do not want to be simply a number. There seems to be a disconnect between people’s daily lives and the way in which jobcentres operate.

In my constituency we have an organisation called MyBigCareer, run by the energetic Deborah Streatfield. She is also campaigning for more mandatory careers advice at school, which I know exists, but it is sometimes only a link to a website, whereas her campaign is specifically for more one-to-one, personalised, sit-down advice. Will the Minister comment on that? My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) raised similar issues.

Everything needs to be put into a context. Since the previous Administration, employment and support allowance has gone, student grants have been abolished and housing benefit is no longer available to 18 to 21-year-olds. We have also heard that the so-called national living wage will not apply to the youngest workers. We do not want some sort of inter-generational conflict as a result. I found a blog that stated:

“UK Boomers slash benefits to young & force them to load up on debt while guaranteeing pensioners ever rising incomes.”

We do not want mistrust between generations, because young people are our future. I worry that some of the logical consequences of Government policy might lead there.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Huq]

I am about to finish, so I would rather not, if that is okay.

The Prince’s Trust—we are talking about Prince Charles, the heir to the throne—youth index uses a measure of 16 to 25, another different definition of what counts as young. One fifth of the respondents for the index said that they regularly fall apart emotionally and that they suffer from anxiety. It found all those mental health issues, so we do not want to be stoking things up.

There is much to agree with in the YMCA report. If we pick up any modern humorous dictionary of quotations, we will find many phrases about young people and youthful folly, such as, “You are only young once.” One such quote is from Oscar Wilde, who said:

“Youth is wasted on the young.”

We do not want to be in a situation where youth is wasted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

I agree. I think most people in the Chamber would agree that further development is required in schools and in other ways to get young people that first experience so that they can develop the business that they have always dreamt about starting.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend has given a striking example of a can-do spirit and attitude. In a sense, I think that divides the House between those on the Government side who want to see employers providing those opportunities for young people to show that they can succeed as he has and those on the Opposition side who often lean towards giving the young more benefits, because they are not capable of working or whatever. Does he agree that the key to getting more young people into work is seeing opportunities provided in precisely the way the Government have done with apprenticeships?

[Chris Green]

Apprenticeships are a key way to get experience and it is really important that there is a whole range of ways to get into apprenticeships and guidance for that.

I am delighted that the Government are continuing to support young people moving into work, allocating £1 billion to the youth contract and ensuring that apprenticeships for under-25s incur no national insurance costs for employers. In my constituency, youth unemployment was at 8% in May 2010. Fast-forward five years and it was at 3.9%. Further, since 2010, Bolton West has had an increase of more than 4,000 apprenticeships.

This week, I am interviewing for an apprentice for my own constituency office. Apprenticeships are a vital way to give young people a chance to earn a salary while getting real work experience. A great deal has been done, but there is still much more to do in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am absolutely delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is so committed to a can-do spirit that is focused more on providing opportunities than on regretting reductions in benefits to young people. I hope he will join me in recognising the extraordinary achievements across constituencies in most of the country in reducing youth unemployment. In my constituency, it has gone from 1,000 people, when the Labour party left power, to 250 today. I hope he will recognise that that is the result of a can-do spirit by Government, constituents, businesses and others working together.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We will always welcome reductions in unemployment. This week, we are talking about the changes to tax credits that are affecting 3.3 million working families and taking away £1,300 a year from them on average. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is certainly not a can-do spirit—that is clobbering people who are in work. I certainly do not commend that, and I hope he will join me in condemning it.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman should listen—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen to his own constituents and the families who are losing out.

The statistics make for sobering reading: 683,000 people between the age of 16 and 24 are still unemployed, and 138,000 of those have been unemployed for more than 12 months. As a percentage, it does not get any better: 14.8% of the economically active population is unemployed. Even if we take into account those in full-time education, the figure is still 13.2%.

Nobody should underestimate the potential problems of youth unemployment for a person’s employability throughout their life. One of the contributors to the speech by the hon. Member for Norwich North made the point that young people want to get experience in order to get a job, but they cannot get a job and so cannot actually get the experience. If someone cannot get a job, there are also issues of not getting into the habit of working, not being able to develop skills and of feeling socially excluded from mainstream society. We have to tackle these issues. To do that, we need quality apprenticeships and quality work placements; in that sense, I commend to the Minister the approach taken by the Government in Wales.

Over the next three years, the Jobs Growth Wales programme will produce nearly 9,000 placements, each of which will be an initial six-month placement paid at or above the national minimum wage. I commend that strong, activist approach to the UK Government, because we really must not fail our generation of young people. If we do, it will be an intergenerational injustice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We do conduct reviews and I would be very happy to review that particular case, if the hon. Lady wants to take it up with me. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), has already met Parkinson’s UK to discuss how we can improve and modify the system so that it helps people much better. We are always looking for ways to improve it, and I and my hon. Friend would be very happy to speak to the hon. Lady about this particular case.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State and his team are absolutely committed to helping 1 million people with disabilities back into work. Last week, I met representatives of an access-to-work contractor, Pluss, which is very active in Gloucester. It told me some remarkable stories of people being helped into jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that specialist providers have a real role to play in helping his Department to achieve this important goal?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes. That is one of the objectives of this Government. We have made huge strides in getting more people with disabilities back into work—I think the figure is now over 220,000, which I believe is the highest figure since records began, in proportionate terms—but the most important point is that we are looking to get that up to the level of normal, non-disabled people who are back in work. Those with disabilities have every right and every reason to expect exactly the same support into work that everybody else gets.

DWP Data

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The data will be published. The urgent question is specifically about the publication of mortality statistics.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement that she will provide the data requested and will look at it analytically, in the way that other Members have suggested. Does she share my slight concern that the phrasing of the urgent question, particularly the inclusion of the words “found fit for work”, implies something sinister? We all know of people not only found fit for work but actually working and fit while working who have died in sad circumstances, including former Members of the House. This issue should be handled very sensitively when the data emerge.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I think it is fair to say that the fit for work assessment was introduced by the Labour Government. Our focus now is on the fact that—I remind the House—those data are coming, and will be published before the autumn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Attention has been drawn to that issue, not least by the Financial Times, which has reported that housing associations’ business plans and their loan covenants and agreements with lenders could be at risk, and that even some big associations could go bust. The implications are very serious.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, so I am surprised that he cannot see the advantages of the housing policy in, first, reducing rents for large numbers of tenants who are among the poorest people in the land; secondly, obliging housing associations to make a 1% productivity saving each year, which is very small compared with other parts of the public sector; and, thirdly, reducing the welfare spend and therefore the budget deficit. Surely they are all advantages.

[Stephen Timms]

I think the hon. Gentleman was momentarily distracted, because I have welcomed both his first and third points. We welcome the fact that rents are being reduced, but he needs to recognise the impact that the changes will have. As I am sure he will be aware, housing associations do not share his rather sanguine view of what the changes will mean, particularly for new house building at a time when we all recognise the need for substantial new socially rented housing, which is not being delivered at the moment.

The Bill does not provide a definition of “full employment”. In line with recent research and the previous Labour Government’s definition, our amendment will set the full employment target at 80% of the working-age population. To pick up on a point rightly made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), in our view the annual report on progress to full employment must also set out progress on the target to halve the disability employment gap.

We will support policies that make work pay and increase opportunity, but where the Government are wrong we will not hesitate to say so. The Conservative party promised in its manifesto that it would

“work to eliminate child poverty”.

It is now absolutely clear that it did not mean it: the Bill abandons any pretence that it did. Instead of eliminating the scandal of child poverty, the Bill attempts to eliminate the term. Labour in government was committed to reducing the appalling levels of child poverty left behind by the Thatcher and Major Governments, and we did so. We introduced the Child Poverty Act 2010, with cross-party support, including from the Secretary of State when he was in opposition and the Conservative party. It contained clear targets to reduce absolute and relative poverty, persistent poverty and material deprivation.

We have known for some time about the debate in the Conservative party about the validity of the relative poverty measure, but now it is not just changing the definition. It is interested not in stopping child poverty, only in stopping people talking about it. It is exactly the same with food banks: the Tories want to stop people discussing them. Clause 6(9) tells us that we should not refer any more to the Child Poverty Act and that instead it is to be known as the life chances Act, but there are fewer life chances for a child growing up in poverty, and poverty needs to be reduced.

Getting rid of the targets and measures leaves the Government with no commitment to tackle child poverty at all, just a requirement to publish a mix of loosely connected statistics. Instead of removing child poverty, the Bill seeks simply to remove it from the lexicon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State’s attempt to reinvent himself as the workers’ friend. In fact, the Bill contains hugely regressive measures that will make many working families much poorer. It is no wonder that they include measures that will effectively repeal the Child Poverty Act 2010. From now on, there will be no income-based measure of child poverty; instead, the Secretary of State will have to report on worklessness and educational attainment, although two thirds of the children who are in poverty come from families who are in work. The problems to which the Secretary of State has referred, such as family breakdown and addiction, are indicators of poverty, but they are not a measure of it. Those problems can occur across the whole income spectrum.

As for educational attainment, the Secretary of State knows, or ought to know, that the biggest predictor of failure in education is poverty. It is not family breakdown, addiction or anything else; it is pure, material poverty. He should not confuse indicators and measurements.

Secondly, this Bill will make many working families much poorer. We have already heard that the increased minimum wage that the Chancellor is introducing is not a living wage, and many people will be excluded even from that increased wage: 21 to 25-year-olds. These people are adults and may have families, but under this Government they will pay a penalty for being poor and working. Where is the incentive to work in that?

As a result of this Bill’s measures, 13 million families will lose £260 a year or £5 a week. That might not sound much to those on the Government Benches, but for families on the margins it is the difference between getting through to the end of the week and not getting through.

The measures to restrict child tax credits and the child element of universal credit to two children are based on the assumption that people are always on tax credits or on benefit, whereas in fact there is a revolving door.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

No, I am afraid I do not have the time.

Life does not proceed in a straight line. Let us take the example of a family with three children. They are doing all right; they can afford it. Then one partner falls ill or dies. The other partner might have to work, and take a part-time or low-wage job. Under this Government’s proposals that third child becomes superfluous—one that they should not have had. Not every child matters under this Government.

Let us say a family improve their prospects and get more hours or get a better job. If that job lasts for more than six months and they have to make another claim, that is treated as a fresh claim and they lose the credits for their third child. Where on earth is the incentive to work in that?

We have also heard about what might happen in cases of rape, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer that point when she sums up. Many women do not report rape for reasons that we understand. When they do report it, the prosecution rate is very low and the conviction rate is even lower. What will be taken as proof—reporting, prosecution or conviction? How will a DWP official, not trained in investigation or used to dealing with rape cases, decide on that? Not since Mao Tse Tung has there been a proposal to limit families that is more degrading to women.

This Bill is a purely regressive Bill. It will make millions of families in this country worse off. That is why I will not support it in the Lobby tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall start by focusing on one or two comments that Members made earlier and then return to a central issue—getting those with disabilities back into work.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said that 3 million strivers will be hammered. I am a great fan of his—he is the Chairman of the Select Committee of which I am a member, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear this—but his gloom tonight was focused on two things. The first is the big problem of unity and what approach to take to welfare and work within his own party. The second is an underlying belief that the only way to help the poor is ultimately to increase benefits from taxpayers, and that the only way out of poverty is to grow a tax credits bill that is already, at £30 billion a year, far greater than in the similar populations of France or Germany, and is, in the words of the former Chancellor, previously the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West,

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”

when it was first introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.

The reason the right hon. Gentleman and his party are discombobulated on the issue is that they rightly feared a reduction in benefits before an increase in wages and did not expect that my party, the party of compassionate conservatism, would implement precisely that: a national living wage considerably above that mooted by their former leader, plus an expansion of the tax-free allowance that will take the amount one can earn without paying income tax to almost double by 2020 the £6,500 allowance of 2010. They know that higher wages, lower tax and less welfare is the right way forward, because there was no social justice in spending over £170 billion more than we received in tax revenues, leaving the interest on Labour’s debts alone—the interest alone—costing us more than the entire education budget. There is no social justice in spending more on benefits—on the interest on all that debt—than on helping our children with education and giving them the chance to attain and to go on to good jobs.

Some of Labour’s leadership candidates have realised that point and seen that there are no more sweeties in the sweet bag and no credible alternative to this overall philosophy of higher wages, lower tax and less welfare— unless one believes that living within one’s means is always for someone else and not for us, and one wishes to follow an anti-austerity programme that has led a country like Greece to the brink of disaster. That is a political option, but it is not one that the city of Gloucester would ever want this country to follow.

I turn briefly to the second part of my speech. The Chancellor promised in his Budget speech that we would always support the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that £30 billion a year is being spent on disability living allowance and on similar allowances. Does my hon. Friend agree all Government Members welcome that?

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the current welfare bill is unsustainable, but he is also right—I have heard him say this in Select Committee meetings—to say it is vital that we support the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. It is true that the Work programme has been far more successful for those on JSA than for those on ESA. The question therefore is: how do we help those people with disabilities who are currently not getting a job and not benefiting from the Work programme in the same way as those on JSA?

Some 61% of those in the ESA work-related action group say that they want to work, and the evidence is that they do. I have heard from charities and from people with disabilities in my constituency how passionately they want to have the same working opportunities as the rest of us, so what can we do to help them? The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), in his role as the Minister for disabled people, has the ambitious task of halving the number of people with disabilities who are out of work. He will need some innovative thinking to help him, so let me make a couple of suggestions.

[Dr Whitford]

Should the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if these people want to work, it is the lack of support and the lack of jobs that is preventing them from getting into work. Why punish them by taking money away? It is like removing the crutches from someone who has just lost a leg before we give them the new limb. Let us get them into work—then they will not need the support.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady raises a perfectly valid point. There is a philosophical difference here: do we take the difference between what they currently get on ESA and JSA and use that money to help give them the greater support that should get them into jobs, or do we just carry on as we are, knowing that the current programme is not that successful? We have to do something different. We have to do more in the Work programme to make it more likely that people with disabilities will get jobs. The jobs are there; all the statistics tell us that more jobs are available than there are people looking for them, but those with disabilities are not getting them at the moment. They need more help with resilience and confidence—the things that make a difference when people go to an interview. They need employers who understand, so the Disability Confident programme is important. They need—we need—providers to understand that they must do more to help, and in return we probably need to give more cash up front, rather than depending solely on payment by returns for those in the ESA category. We MPs need to do our bit. When we hold job fairs, how many of us focus on those on ESA? It is time to tilt our jobs fairs away from those on JSA and towards those with disabilities and on ESA. We can do that, with the help of the Department for Work and Pensions.

There is much to be done, and I believe Ministers are aware that when they review the Work programme they will have to innovate to make sure that those with disabilities and on ESA stand a better chance of winning jobs in a competitive marketplace. We need to do more to help employers realise the importance of this. All of us need to do more as Members to inspire our residents and our businesses to apply for those jobs and to help them win them. That will be vital in reducing the working age welfare cost from 13% of all public spending at the moment to a more reasonable figure.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I regret that there is no more time.

Above all, we need to inspire those with disabilities into a job. The Leonard Cheshire Disability charity said:

“We believe that disabled people should have the freedom…to contribute economically and to participate fully in society.”

I believe that all of us agree with that. Now we must do our bit to make sure it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) described, people’s circumstances can change. People do not have a complete and perfect forecast of how their life is going to pan out, which is why we need a safety net. The problem is that a child living in a family with more than two children is 50% more likely to be living in poverty than the average. Some 35% of the children in this country who live in poverty live in those families, so these measures are precisely targeted at those children. The measures will increase the number of children affected and deepen the poverty they face.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Lady recognise The Children’s Society’s comments? It said it supports plans to add additional reporting requirements on parental employment and educational attainment as these are important in contributing to children’s welfare. I know she would say that these were additional, not a substitute, but does she recognise that they are important measures to study?

[Helen Goodman]

I used to work for The Children’s Society and it does some excellent work. What I am concerned about tonight is that rather like a child who has broken a toy and hides it under the bed, the Chancellor tried to hide the impact of this Budget by not presenting the distribution tables in the normal and proper way after the Budget. Fortunately, the IFS told us the truth, which is that people at the top are losing 0.2% of their income and people at the bottom are losing 7% of theirs. This is a phenomenally regressive Bill and a very regressive Budget. It will take £10 million out of the local economy every single year in my constituency. As hon. Members have said, one of the worst things about the tax credit cuts is that they affect in-work families, who are struggling in low-paid jobs to do their very best for their children. They are being given what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has called a “work penalty”. The Bill worsens work incentives. A top-rate taxpayer who earns an extra pound can take home 55p whereas a lone parent on tax credits can take home only 25p.

The Chancellor believes that his rabbit—a rise in the national minimum wage—solves the problem. Of course we all welcome that increase, but it does not solve the problem. It does not compensate by the right amount, it does not compensate enough people and it does not compensate at the right time. Overall, 13 million people are losing from these measures. Some 3 million are losing £1,000 and 2.7 million people will gain from the national minimum wage. The mismatch is shown by chart B3 on page 208 of the report by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. It says something that surprised me and is very pertinent:

“around half the cash gains”—

from the increase in the minimum wage—

“may accrue to the top half of the household income distribution”.

It shows that people at the bottom gain less than £600 and those at the top gain more than £1,000. Furthermore, in evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, it told us that only 14% of people in the bottom decile receive the national minimum wage.

I have concentrated on the issue of children and tax credits, but I have also had many messages from carers, sick and disabled people, and lone parents who are worried that the 30-hour condition is coming in before the extra childcare provision is in place. There are so many serious issues here, and it is a shame that we do not have time to address them.

Recently, Professor Amartya Sen said:

“Democracy should be about preventing mistakes through participatory deliberations, rather than about making heads roll after mistakes have been made.”

He is right. I have been in this House for 10 years, and I have never voted against my party’s Whip. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham made a good case for the Front-Bench amendment. I shall vote for the amendment, but there are so many issues in this Bill that are deeply worrying that I cannot avoid going into the No Lobby against it tonight.

Jobcentre Plus

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks with passion about the impact of sanctions, but does she agree that the whole business of claiming JSA is based on a contract signed by the benefit seeker and Jobcentre Plus? It is a commitment on both sides. Jobcentre Plus rarely uses sanctions. They are used only as a last resort. It is a stick and carrot approach. The reducing level of unemployment across the country shows that the approach is working effectively. Does she agree?

[Hannah Bardell]

I am afraid I do not. I have a number of examples, and I will happily cite one that comes from Citizens Advice Scotland. An east of Scotland citizens advice bureau reports that a client was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment that he missed because he was on a forklift training course. He was advised by the jobcentre to attend after he finished his course, but was sanctioned for not coming on his normal signing-on day. The client was married with a young child and required a food parcel to feed his family.

Sadly, the stream of people coming through my constituency office door has not indicated that the job programmes are working. We want full devolution to Scotland so that we can have Scottish answers to Scottish questions on some of these matters. I have no doubt that there may be areas where sanctioning is working, but there seems to be a consensus that modernisation is required. A Poverty Alliance report in February 2015 found that action to increase state benefits, end the punitive sanctions regime, address in-work poverty, raise the minimum wage and promote the living wage that will ultimately have the biggest impact on stemming the growth of food poverty in Scotland.

The Scottish Government have done a lot to mitigate some aspects of the UK Government regime, and they continue to do what they can with the resources they have to alleviate the impact of welfare reform and cuts. Current and planned Scottish Government funding will result in an investment of around £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16. The Scottish Government are also providing £33 million in funding for the Scottish welfare fund in 2015-16 to mitigate the impact of benefits reform. We will have to see what we can do on the further cuts. They are also providing local authorities with £35 million in 2015-16 to allow them to top up discretionary housing payments to meet the estimated £44.8 million required to compensate for the cost of the bedroom tax.

The proposals in the Scotland Bill to allow the Scottish Government to top up reserved benefits are welcome, but Scotland is expected to mitigate the impact of welfare cuts from a budget that is being cut year on year. Scotland must have full control of working-age benefits to create a fairer system that provides adequate support for those who need it.

We have done a huge amount on the living wage—we are halfway towards our target of having 500 private companies paying it. We reached the 250 mark two weeks ago with a nursery just outside my constituency in West Lothian. However, the Scotland Bill as it stands restricts the devolution of employment support programmes to those for long-term unemployed and disabled people. That would prevent the Scottish Government from providing effective early intervention for those recently out of work and from joining up employment support services with previously devolved services, such as skills and education. The Smith commission report stated:

“The Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted by DWP (which are presently delivered mainly, but not exclusively, through the Work Programme and Work Choice) on expiry of the current commercial arrangements.”

We must intervene early, and we must have the powers to do that so that we can effectively help people out of benefits and into work. Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, has said:

“The Work Programme as it stands is not fit for a modern Scotland but there may be aspects of the current system that do work for individuals and organizations and we want to hear those views too. Professor Alan McGregor and members of the advisory group will play a key role in drawing in views from all areas of the country in as many sectors as possible.”

The Scottish Government will have responsibility for the Work programme and the Work Choice programme within two years. They have set up an advisory group so that we can work on that.

The Smith commission’s recommendations went further than the Scotland Bill’s limitations on employment support, and the SNP wants to go further yet and devolve the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland to Holyrood. That would deliver the complete and coherent devolution of welfare-to-work functions, ensuring co-ordinated support for those out of work. Having responsibility for universal credit sanctions and conditions would also empower the Scottish Parliament to ensure a more effective, supportive and socially just approach to getting people into work. With those powers in Scotland’s hands, we could rectify the failings of the jobcentre network and the damaging changes to welfare and employment support that are harming so many in Scotland.

I want to finish by explaining why this subject is so close to my heart. I recently employed a young man called Marcus Woods who had worked passionately behind the scenes on my campaign. He had been out of work for some time and gave his time to my campaign free of charge, with great dignity and passion. I recently employed him full time. I am proud to have taken someone who had been on benefits and long-term unemployed out of unemployment and into work. I have seen with my own eyes how the opportunity to be involved in the democratic process in Scotland has inspired someone to come into full-time employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. I will. My point is that the Work programme has been successful—it has been one of the most successful employment programmes in the United Kingdom’s history. At the end of the day, that should be welcomed and supported by all of us.

The Government are clear that we want to support more individuals with disability into work. A lot of work is being done with Work programme contractors and providers to concentrate more resources and investment in that area. If I may just share an anecdote, last week I sat down with Work programme providers to look at what has been working and some of the successes and strengths of the Work programme, and how we can address some of the real challenges for individuals with disabilities. That is the right thing to do, and we should all be focusing on that. We should also look at what support and interventions we can put in place not just for individuals with disability but for other individuals who are further away from the labour market—for example, those with health conditions.

[Richard Graham]

Am I right in thinking that there will at some point, probably before the end of the year, be a review of some of the criteria for selection for contractors for the Work programme? I believe that the current contracts come to an end at the beginning of 2017, so there is an opportunity for all Members—and for Select Committees, all-party groups, and so on—to chip in ideas for the Government to consider over the next few months.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. We can never stand still on this issue and it is important that we learn the lessons as we go forward. On that basis, I would welcome Members’ views.

To conclude, Mr Williams—

Scotland Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

We have a number of proposals relating to the Bill, including devolving housing benefit, which we will discuss this afternoon. We think that that money should be reinvested, wherever possible, in the building of social and affordable housing, because that would ultimately bring down the housing benefit bill. The hon. Gentleman tends to forget that if we invest to deal with the fundamental underlying problems in the system, we can bring the benefit bill down.

Getting people into work, introducing higher pay and building social housing to get people out of the more expensive private rented sector would all make a huge difference to the benefit bill. More money would then be available to reinvest in the system. Our double devolution proposals to get the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and Access to Work into the hands of the local authorities, which are in the best position to deliver them, would allow us to reinvest into the system. The Conservatives’ response of simply cutting the welfare bill rather than dealing with the fundamental underlying problems is the reason why the bill has been going up despite all the changes that the Government made during the last Parliament.

Let me make it clear that Labour is the only true guardian of the UK welfare system, supporting pensioners and the most vulnerable against Conservative cuts that will hit working people the hardest and against an SNP group determined to break up the system without having any idea of the consequences. That is why the Bill is so important. According to the House of Commons Library, if the Bill were passed in its present form, the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for 62% of all public expenditure. If the new clause proposing the devolution of housing benefit were passed, that figure would rise to 65%, but that is within the integrity of the UK welfare system.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, and I do not want him to get too carried away with his narrative of how beastly the Conservatives have been to the poorest people. In my constituency, no new social housing was built during the 13 years during which we had a Labour MP. Now, 100 new social houses have been started. His narrative is precisely the one that his party tried, and failed, to get across during the general election. Does he not agree that it is time to look at welfare in a completely different light?

[Ian Murray]

That might be the experience in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency surgeries on a Friday and Saturday, but it is not the reality for my constituents. Many disabled people, and all the disability and voluntary sector organisations that have contributed to these parts of the Bill, have said something completely contrary to what he has just said. That might be the experience in his own backyard, but it is certainly not what I see in my constituency. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Child Poverty Action Group, Shelter Scotland, Enable and many other disability charities have all said that the situation is completely contrary to the one he is describing. I do not think that having the lowest level of house building since the 1920s is anything to be proud of. We should be doing something about that, across the House.