Support for Care Leavers

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this important debate. As I listened to him, I was pleased to note that he and I have quite a common view on many of the issues. He was very clear in his opening remarks; there is a danger that we might forget that when we use the term “care leavers” we are talking about young people who have already encountered more than their fair share of troubles. They have not usually enjoyed the benefits of a stable family life that are available to others. They may have had little or no contact with their natural parents and family members, or those relationships may have been abusive and traumatising, so we are talking about people who have not had the best of starts. They are significantly more likely to be classed as NEETs—not in education, employment or training—if we compare them with their non-care counterparts, which is an important point to bear in mind, and of course they are much more likely to be subject to benefit sanctions. I suspect that is because sufficient account is not taken of the other things happening in their lives in the way in which the benefits system sometimes processes those transactions.

Our starting point should be to say that these young people are full of potential, but they need something extra by way of support and encouragement from the welfare state, which needs to pick up some of the corporate parenting role every bit as much as the local authority to ensure that those young folk get the assistance necessary to achieve their full potential.

The Government, to their credit, have sought to identify their corporate parenting responsibilities. In 2016 they published “Keep on caring”, a cross-departmental strategy paper designed to provide better support to care leavers. It identified five key outcomes, two of which are particularly relevant to this debate. One was improved access to education, employment and training: encouraging supported internships, meeting training costs and providing employment opportunities for care leavers in Government Departments and their agencies. Another was to ensure that care leavers achieve financial stability. That involved a promise to exempt care leavers from cuts in housing support due to be applied to all other 18 to 21-year-olds. The strategy also promised a review of the case for extending the exemption to shared accommodation rates within universal credit up to the age of 25, which is something that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked the Minister to pursue. It also promised a further review of the personal adviser role to ensure that care leavers can get support to help them manage their finances.

As I have said, the Government deserve credit for the approach that “Keep on caring” set out. I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers on these issues, but there are doubts about implementation, especially against the backdrop of cash-strapped local authorities, worries over the roll-out of universal credit, and large funding cuts to other services. I am advised that care leavers not in education or training do not have access to a personal advisor until the age of 25, but I believe there is provision within the universal credit arrangements for work coaches to suspend work requirements during periods of particular hardship or difficulty, for example, if someone is homeless. Are such measures available to care leavers who find themselves in similar difficult, confused circumstances? If not, will the Minister consider adopting that approach?

Does the Minister have any information on how many care leavers are claiming universal credit and how many of them are currently in rent arrears? As I understand it, there is a DWP marker for care leavers, but only if they self-identify as a care leaver, and I am not clear that that arrangement will necessarily continue under universal credit. I should say that I do not think that what I am talking about is part of some grand conspiracy. I am merely asking whether it has been thought about; are things joined up? I say that because I recognise that “Keep on Caring” was a cross-departmental document, and I am kind of keen to know what work is going on to reduce the bureaucracy that care leavers experience as they try to negotiate local authorities and jobcentres in pursuit of such things as housing, housing benefit, training, job opportunities and other financial support. I recently visited a London jobcentre to look at the roll-out of universal credit, and I was impressed by the work coaches I met, but I was particularly interested to know whether there is any specific training for them on the issue of corporate parenting principles: how are we going to take that bit of “Keep on Caring” and translate it into the work that is done on the ground? It would be helpful to know that.

As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was saying, on the issue of apprenticeships, £3.50 per hour may be fairly meagre, but I suppose it is conceived on the basis that an 18-year-old living at home with one or both parents could get by on that sort of money. My question is how it incentivises a young care leaver to take up an apprenticeship, and, if we are being honest, how on earth we expect them to manage on that kind of money. I know that the Minister will not be able to help me too much, because as far as I understand it the Government freely admit that they have no idea how many care leavers start or complete apprenticeships; nor do they know how many employers receive the additional apprenticeship payment for taking on a care leaver. The hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks by discussing how much use we could make of data. If only the Government collected some of it. I was surprised when I tabled parliamentary questions to discover that that information was not collected. I should have thought it was a good opportunity for the Government to measure the progress they were trying to make.

I certainly endorse the suggestion of an apprenticeship bursary—I presume that that is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—to mirror the higher education bursary; it would be a good idea. From the figures that I have seen it does not look in any sense cost-prohibitive. If it is part of the aim of “Keep on Caring”—something that the Department for Work and Pensions can play a major role in delivering—to make it possible to get a job and a stable life, it seems that we should strive to provide good-quality apprenticeships.

I note that the 2016 care leavers strategy states that the DWP is willing to explore what more can be done in the benefits system to support those wishing to return to education between the ages of 21 and 25. Is the Minister in a position to update us on any progress being made in that area? A lot might be learned from organisations such as Become, whose Propel project supports care leavers into further and higher education.

Finally, as the chair of the all-party group on looked after children and care leavers, I am in the privileged position of getting to hear the views and experiences of quite a lot of young people who have been part of the care system. I note that there is a promise, in the corporate parenting consultation by the Department for Education, to incorporate young peoples’ understanding of corporate parenting responsibilities into the work that it is doing on the local offer. It would be a good idea if the DWP could say it was going to adopt the same approach. Perhaps I may conclude by inviting the Minister to attend a future meeting of the group, where she could listen first-hand to what some young care leavers say. It would make a real difference to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Gillan.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this debate. I am pleased that we are united in recognising that we can all do more to give care leavers the best possible start to their adult lives. If the hon. Gentleman never says anything important again in this House, he said something important today: “Young people in care are our children”. That is a very important statement. I find it quite difficult to find much to disagree with in his speech, although the Government’s success is perhaps not quite as rosy as he thinks. In fact, his speech offered real challenges to the Government and I will go on to offer some of my own.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green—

[Steve McCabe]

Selly Oak.

[Alex Cunningham]

It says “Hall Green” here. I looked it up specially. I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct and I am wrong. He has spent a lot of his time championing looked-after children in this place, and I congratulate him on and thank him for that. He mentioned that these young people are full of potential. All young people are full of potential; we just need to give them the extra support they need to achieve that.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about services being developed with the knowledge of the young people involved. I agree with that, and it is something we tried to do when I was a councillor in Stockton. She went on to give shocking statistics on the number of former care leavers in the criminal justice system. That is all the more reason for us to do much better.

I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work with the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. The study it did focused on care leavers. I have spent a lot of my life trying to get people to focus more on care leavers, and it is great that we see that happening across the piece. He talked about the importance of them having the security of their own home, and I agree with that.

This subject is close to my heart. Although it is not my particular brief, I am pleased to be here today. I was the lead member for children’s services in Stockton. I very much enjoyed the time I spent with care leavers, even if I was left wondering how as a corporate parent I could do more for the likes of them, bearing in mind that they would be cast out into the wider world much younger than my own two sons, John and Andrew, who opted to leave home in their mid-20s. John and Andrew returned home, and I am always pleased to see them, but that is not an option for care leavers.

The situation that stuck out the most for me in recent years was not a young person from Stockton—it was when I met a young woman during a visit by the then Education Select Committee to deepest Kent. She was a care leaver and told of being all but abandoned in her room at a hostel and having to regularly put up with men braying at her door asking her to party with them. She was frightened. She felt at a loss as to what to do next, and she lacked the necessary support to get on with her life. As MPs, we are not formally corporate parents, but that does not mean we cannot recognise that, even though care leavers at 18 may be legally adults, there are many ways in which they need much more support than an average 18-year-old, who most likely has the support of a family. We can play our part in giving them that. We can start with the opportunity to move into high-quality training and employment opportunities—something we want for our own children and grandchildren. The rates of young people not in education, employment or training are too high, with care leavers almost three times less likely to be in education, employment or training at the age of 19. That figure can no doubt be associated with an often unstable journey through the care system. Other Members have described that.

Progress has been made over the past 20 years, and that is worth reflecting on. The Labour Government took the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 through Parliament, which created the role of the personal adviser. While it is fair to say that the provision is not perfect—local authorities still struggle to maintain this level of service with shrinking budgets—in its day it was a real innovation. In 2009, the Labour Government introduced a requirement for all care leavers at university to receive a £2,000 bursary from their local authority.

It is not just Labour that has improved provision. In 2014, the coalition Government created the role of the virtual school head, whose job it is to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children in each area. I welcomed that. It was something we had been doing in Stockton. I welcomed the decision by the last Government to extend the provision of local authority support from 21 to 25 through the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

My own borough council, Stockton, has an excellent reputation for delivering for vulnerable people. It has removed the requirement for care leavers to pay council tax for a period of time while they are adjusting to their new independent life. Others have followed suit, and I wonder whether the Minister could encourage more to do likewise.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Children’s Society. Members have spoken about it and other organisations, such as Barnardo’s, and thanked them for their work with care leavers and the briefings and statistics they provide us all with. Statistics have been in evidence in the debate. We know that 40% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 14% of all other 19 to 21-year-olds. Outcomes under the Work programme for care leavers were significantly worse than for others. They were around half as likely to spend the minimum amount of time doing work experience within a 12-month period than peers aged 18 to 24 claiming jobseeker’s allowance.

The Department for Work and Pensions could do a lot more to improve the way the social security system works for care leavers. That cohort is five times more likely to face benefit sanctions than their peer group. The system of personal advisers introduced by Labour was a positive step, but the Children’s Society has highlighted that there is often a lack of co-ordination between personal advisers and work coaches. It has called for early warnings to be used when considering a sanction for a care leaver and for no sanction to be imposed without the personal adviser being notified. Will the Government look at that, and innovative schemes such as the one in Trafford, where there is a protocol between the DWP and the local council that allows for two-way communication between a care leaver’s personal adviser and work coach on their claim?

The Children’s Society also argues that sanctions should be at a lower rate, as for 16 and 17-year-olds, and be for no more than four weeks. What is the Minister’s view on that? Another idea is that the DWP could send reminders of jobcentre appointments to young people by text or WhatsApp. The NHS does that already because of the cost of missed appointments. Care leavers do not have parents to prompt them to attend, so that might be something they could benefit from in particular.

For many who have recently left care, and those about to do so, their first experience of applying for benefits will be with universal credit. If the Government do not do something to help, they could face the same severe negative impact that universal credit is having on people and their wellbeing. In August 2017, the Children’s Society report on care leavers and the benefits system highlighted that the DWP introduced a marker to identify care leavers on the labour market system used by DWP staff to ensure that they received more tailored support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spoke about that. There does not appear to be any such marker for universal credit, so will the Minister tell us what plans there are to change that?

Universal credit has also had implications for 18 to 21-year-old care leavers who are subject to the youth obligation, which effectively means increased conditionality compared with legacy benefits. They receive intensive work-focused support from the start of their claim. That may be positive, as it is not a good thing for young people to start their adult life with a prolonged period of unemployment. However, care leavers may face more challenges at that stage in their lives than the vast majority of their peers, so will the Government look at how they can pause that intensive search for work if the young person needs more time to attend to the other issues in their lives?

Under universal credit, the leaving care team cannot begin to set up the claim until the young person has turned 18, so payment will not be received for at least five to six weeks. This afternoon in the main Chamber we have been talking about universal credit, and Conservative Members themselves were saying that the period needed to be much shorter. The Minister could help to support local authority leaving care teams carrying out the administrative work to set up a claim four to six weeks before the young person leaves care, so that they will receive payment without delay. Will the DWP also provide more training for jobcentre staff to support care leavers, and work with local authorities to provide training for personal advisers so that they can understand universal credit better and make care leavers in their charge aware that alternative arrangements are possible?

In its briefing, the Children’s Society also highlighted that care leavers might lose up to £45 from housing benefit when they turn 22 as a result of the existing rules on the shared accommodation rate of local housing allowance. Other Members covered that in detail. Finding affordable housing is already a severe problem for young people, so it is important that the impediments are addressed. A Centrepoint survey found that 26% of care leavers have sofa-surfed and 14% have slept rough. Stability in housing has to be one of the most fundamental needs in ensuring stability in people’s lives.

The cross-departmental leaving care strategy stated that the Government would look into extending the age at which young people switch from the single bedroom rate of local housing allowance to the shared accommodation rate when living in private rented accommodation, which is a reality for many, given the shortage of social rented properties. Local housing allowance rates have been frozen until 2020, so a delay to the age at which care leavers begin to receive the shared accommodation rate—which can be £30 less per week—is particularly urgent. That move to a lower rate of support does not occur in a vacuum. It happens at a time when young people are only entitled to a lower rate national living wage, and at an age when their entitlement under universal credit is noticeably lower. That cut in monthly housing support eats into already stretched budgets, putting tenancies at risk and causing stress and anxiety.

Can the Minister share with us her assessment of the case for delaying the cut in the move to the shared accommodation rate from 22 to 25? I also ask her how the DWP could ensure that care leavers get the meaningful financial education they need. Many of us want it to be universal for all young people, but I would suggest that care leavers could do with a bit of extra help to ensure that they do not get into debt. If they do get into debt, they need even more robust support. I would be interested in her view on the breathing space being proposed in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill for care leavers. That would halt creditors imposing interest charges and extra fees, which only worsen the debt.

I hope, and am sure, that the Government will listen to all the points made today, and act to show that we are all on the side of care leavers and want them to realise their full potential. I just hope that the Minister, like every individual who has spoken this afternoon, will become that real champion for care leavers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I do not get that many opportunities to praise Birmingham City Council, but it is one of the authorities that apply the exemption. Will the Minister consider writing to her colleagues at DCLG to ask them to publish a full list of the councils that exempt care leavers from council tax? Quite rightly, that is not something the Government can do, but it is a practice that almost all councils should follow unless there is a very good reason why they are not doing it.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman represents Birmingham beautifully—Selly Oak and also other parts of Birmingham, as we have learned today. He makes a good point.

Housing and Social Security

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I have visited home building sites and potential home building sites in Cannock Chase. I commend the record so far and the proactive attitude that is taken, certainly by the local Member of Parliament, to ensuring that local people have the homes that they need and deserve.

Since 2010, house building starts have increased by more than three quarters. More than 382,000 households have been helped to buy a property through schemes such as Help to Buy and the reinvigorated right to buy.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is telling us about his record. In these changed times, is it still Government policy that housing associations should be required to sell off homes faster than new homes can be built?

[Sajid Javid]

It is Government policy that people should have the right to buy their home, whether it is a council house or a housing association property. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are piloting how the housing association right to buy programme works. We will then work on how we can take it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Like many others, I had expected a little more from this Queen’s Speech. On the key point regarding the repeal of the European Communities Act, the certainty and assurance my constituents want to see is that there will be no loss of rights or protections as a result of leaving the EU. The last thing our country needs right now is a bunch of “here today, gone tomorrow” Ministers blundering around undoing the rights and safeguards on which the British people depend for protections at work, human rights, environmental security and economic wellbeing.

One thing is clear: we do not need to hear any more nonsense about extensive use of secondary legislation or Henry VIII powers, as this Parliament has plenty of time to debate these issues. As we reflect on whether contempt for regulation played any part in the Grenfell tragedy, the last thing we want is to see our water and air standards reduced and food safety compromised because of the behaviour of those who fundamentally reject precautionary principles or the idea that the polluter pays.

If part of my job is to reflect the concerns of my constituents, it is only fair that I point out that in a recent survey I undertook with the people of Selly Oak, they were very clear that their No. 1 concern was housing and homelessness. That is perhaps not surprising when we can barely move in Birmingham these days without coming across someone sleeping in a shop doorway. The problem is not confined to the city centre; it is rife across the suburbs and the same all over the country. It is a consequence of an obsession with austerity. In some cases it is a direct result of the Government’s pointless meddling with the Supporting People programme, heartless and botched attacks on local authority spending, and ill-considered welfare changes. My advice centres are full of people with housing problems: a mother with two children who has been forced to sleep on the floor of her parents’ two-bedroom house for over three years; the man whose bedroom is covered in black mould; repairs that never get done; or the woman who contacted me to say that she and her three-year-old son had been subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning courtesy of a flue that had not been properly connected to a boiler despite the work being signed off by the landlord’s gas engineer.

This Queen’s Speech should be setting out to make these problems a priority. We need the law to be simplified so that there are powers to utilise land that has been banked by individuals or organisations. We need permissive powers to encourage funding opportunities so that, as well as traditional build, there is scope for smaller developments, community build, and high-quality, healthy and environmentally modern systems. We need to be certain that this Government are now serious about building such housing and ending the scandal of homelessness.

Of course, rather than being shy of regulation, we need to tackle rogue landlords and developers, whether we are talking about council and social housing or the private sector. Last year, the Government had an opportunity to look at my Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill, which warned of the dangers of rogue building and conversions. Perhaps if the Government had spent a little more time listening and a little less time talking it out, their minds would have been a little more focused on safety and regulation. I hope that I will be able to give them another opportunity in this Parliament, but we should not be waiting for a private Member’s Bill; providing protection for tenants and homeowners against rogue landlords and developers should be a Government priority.

Of course, with so little else to address in this Queen’s Speech, I thought we might have seen an offer to revisit the plight of the WASPI women. If transitional arrangements in the form of pension credits are not the answer for these women, who are being punished through no fault of their own, what is the answer? It surely cannot be to wait until their numbers dwindle through age and ill health. This is an injustice for all to see. Why not have a short piece of legislation to tackle it now? And while we are at it, where is the promise to straighten out the mess that is affecting disabled people and the scandal of personal independence payments? How many people have to go hungry, suffer a breakdown, get into mountains of debt and lose their entire self-respect before this Government recognise that there is a world of difference between helping those who can work into work and setting arbitrary targets based on bonus payments for private companies that strip the poor, the sick and disabled of support to which any civilised society would see them as rightfully entitled?

We heard a bit yesterday from the mover of the Gracious Speech about his wish for a fairer, more just society. I want that as well. So how am I to explain to my constituents that the average chief executive of a FTSE 100 company now earns 144 times the average salary? How do we compare that with cuts to in-work benefits and pay freezes for low-paid workers? Why are the Government not doing something to tackle that? What about introducing a compulsory living wage—and these people on high salaries can certainly afford to pay tax on a salary of that level?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on a fine maiden speech, and congratulate others who have made maiden speeches today.

I hope I may be forgiven for particularly singling out my hon. Friend the new Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who not only made a fine and moving speech but has had to rise to the kind of challenge that I am not sure anybody has ever had to rise to so soon after being elected to Parliament. Kensington needs her, and she has certainly risen to that challenge in these days. I hope we will all do what we can to support her in the times ahead. I speak with particular feeling because some of the wards in the northern part of her constituency were in my constituency under previous boundaries, as was Grenfell Tower. What she said was therefore particularly powerful and moving for me.

I echo what my hon. Friend and others have said about the extraordinary community response at a time of serious failure in the institutions of the state in the aftermath of the tragedy, including from many constituents in north Westminster, a sister community who have been working tirelessly over the past week to help the victims and survivors of the disaster.

Along with very many other Members of Parliament, my hon. Friend and I have residents living in other tower blocks, many of whom are deeply concerned. I hope that few will have anything like the equivalent level of reason to be concerned, although they will still need reassurance. However, some may need more support and assistance than reassurance. It is absolutely incumbent on us to rise to that challenge.

[Steve McCabe]

Is not the one single bit of reassurance that everyone needs the knowledge that if local authorities are going to carry out inspections and take remedial action, there will be funding from the Government to deliver it?

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I and others pushed for that during the statement and at other opportunities. The local authorities, the arm’s length management organisations and other providers must have a guarantee. They must have the bills underwritten both for the inspection process and for any remedial works. I think we have nudged closer to that commitment this afternoon, but we still do not have it unequivocally. This is important because local authorities have had their budgets cut very severely, Kensington by 38% in the past five years and my own borough of Westminster by 46%. Local authorities, including the environmental health teams who are so important in this context, have had their budgets cut, and social housing providers have had a rent cut imposed on them, with an impact on housing revenue accounts and on management and maintenance in social housing. That has to be recognised. It was a policy imposed by the Government and it has implications that they need to respond to. That action has to be forthcoming.

The Government will need to demonstrate to us how quickly they can respond to the findings of the inquiry, which cannot be prejudged, of course, but actions need to be taken even before that. We have spoken about social housing in this context, but we need to remember that many residents in towers and high-rise blocks, even those built by local authorities, are not actually local authority tenants. In many cases, about a third are either leaseholders, or are legally subletting their properties to private tenants. Those people are all in different situations and subject to different regulatory arrangements, and there are real concerns that the fire safety and other standards applying in social housing do not automatically apply to private owners and leaseholders in social housing blocks. That must be urgently addressed by the Government.

In my view, we need to bring into force section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which would allow victims of breaches of building regulations to sue for damages. The Government could move on that. We need to introduce a statutory consultation process applying to tenants when there are major works in buildings. Such a process currently applies to leaseholders, but not to tenants. We need to amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to allow landlords to go into tenanted properties and ensure that fire safety standards are comparable. We also need to impose new obligations on leases to enable landlords to require access for the purpose of making fire safety improvements, and so forth. There are regulatory changes on which the Government could act immediately and urgently—and they must do so—without in any way prejudging the findings of the inquiry and the separate actions that they will need to take afterwards.

I ask the Government to revisit a revised version of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill—I introduced the proposals as a private Member’s Bill, and the Opposition put them forward as amendments to the Housing and Planning Act 2016—because, particularly in an age of cash-starved local authorities, we need to enable tenants to enforce standards in law when there is substandard accommodation, as they can currently do with respect to properties in disrepair. This is not about having a new regulatory burden; it is about tenants being able to enforce such standards.

In my last remaining minute I want to raise one other matter. The absolute first priority today must be to house the survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy adequately—we must provide them with decent local accommodation—but that must not be at the expense of the needs of other people who are homeless and in desperate housing need, whether in Kensington, Westminster or other parts of London. At the moment, we are in the dire situation that homelessness is rising fast: it has risen by 17% since 2010, and just yesterday we saw figures showing that the number of households in temporary accommodation has risen by a staggering 61% since 2010. As has happened in Kensington and Westminster, many of those families have been moved away from their homes, their children’s schools and their support networks. Social housing is not part of the problem; social housing for these and other people is part of the solution, provided it is properly funded, decent and affordable.

Intergenerational Fairness

Steve McCabe Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I want to avoid seeing this as an issue of young versus old. I am conscious that there is a huge variation in the incomes of pensioner households, with some relatively affluent and others struggling to get by. I recognise the dangers of too much means-testing among elderly people, and particularly the risk that it can lead to people going without despite genuine need and entitlement.

However, I am also aware that this is not a great time to be young. Average household income, which has been rising for every successive generation since 1910, has stopped rising for those born in the 1980s, who are the first generation to start their working lives on an income lower than that of the previous generation. This younger generation will also do less well on pensions, both through the lack of access to defined-benefit schemes and the age at which they will be entitled to a state pension. It is true that, as we have heard, auto-enrolment will help, but it is hardly generous, and it will require a steady rise in employee contributions over the coming years. I would like the Government to take a good look at pension tax relief. In response to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I would like to see what can be done to incentivise those on lower incomes and at the early stages of their working lives to save in a pension pot. That would be a better use of public money than a generous relief for those who have already built up a healthy and, in some cases, quite substantial pension pot.

We need to think about how hard it is for young people to get on the property ladder and the proportion of their already limited income that so many are forced to pay in rent and other housing costs. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that homeowners spend about 15% of their income on mortgage payments, which is about half the amount that renters are forced to spend in this country.

I was struck by a proposal in the report of a recent British Academy-IFS roundtable on intergenerational fairness, which suggested that one answer to the double dilemma of accommodation costs for the young and of the social care crisis would be to encourage a model of co-habiting with older people. That might provide benefits of increased companionship and new understandings between generations at a time when the idea of the extended family has all but ceased to be a feature of our society and so many people feel isolated. The arrangement could also afford a measure of care and have a positive impact on wellbeing. It might also help those who are property-rich but cash-poor. If costs could be set at a fair and realistic level, it might offer some hope to those whose accommodation costs mean that they have no prospect of saving to get on the property ladder.

I support the Chairman and other members of the Work and Pensions Committee in calling on the Government to come clean about their future plans for the triple lock, which I honestly do not think is sustainable. I do not want an election campaign to be fought on a false bidding war for pensioners, only to be followed by a harsh U-turn shortly afterwards, as we have already seen with tuition fees and expectations on social care.

I am aware that many pensioner groups will oppose what I have to say. I have already had a hard time from the West Midlands Pensioners Convention for being a member of a Committee that could dare look at this issue. I am also aware that Labour Front Benchers are currently committed to maintaining the triple lock for the whole of the next Parliament, but I ask them to look again and see whether there is a better way to both protect pensioners and hold the Government to account on their vague plans.

There are two problems with the triple lock. First, it has a ratchet effect, which means that it demands an ever greater share of GDP when we have seen no income growth in working-age households for the past 10 years. Secondly, the triple lock creates a trade-off that means that the state pension age will have to rise above 70, which means pushing it above average life expectancy in some of the poorer parts of the country. In some parts of Birmingham, average male life expectancy is already 70.4 years and healthy life expectancy is as low as 53 years. In many parts of the country, average life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are even worse. We have already seen the problems caused by the rising pension age for Women Against State Pension Inequality, a group that I think should get transitional help.

I wonder what the risks will be if we pursue a policy of an ever-rising pension age. A better alternative would be to link the state pension to average earnings, but with added inflation protection in periods where price growth exceeds earnings. I ask my party’s Front Benchers to think about that. As a politically acceptable sweetener for such a change, it might be worth considering replacing the hugely expensive 2.5% component of the triple lock with a pledge to set a different cap on care costs and more support for social care.

We have to accept that workless pensioner incomes—that is, those of people who are fully retired—have grown more rapidly than those of any other group since 2001. Today’s young workers are set to be net contributors to the welfare state over the course of their lives, while the baby boomer generation, as we have heard, will be net beneficiaries. I want honesty for the future, fairness for current and future pensioners, and sustainable and affordable plans for the challenges that lie ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about people being able to reach their full potential and make use of all the benefits that come with having a pay packet—all those opportunities and that choice. Employers have a huge role to play. I have been very encouraged by the results of the consultation, particularly from employers wanting to do more, and we must ensure that they have the tools and expertise to do more.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T3. As part of the Government’s welcome proposal to halve the disability employment gap, will the Minister ensure that a work support plan is in place before a disabled person is made a job offer, thus increasing the chances of success and reducing the risk of wrongly applied sanctions or accusations that the person does not want a job?

[Penny Mordaunt]

This consultation affords us an opportunity to look at a person’s whole journey. Generalising, the earlier someone can have a conversation with somebody about their ambitions and the support they will need, the better that journey will be, so I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Digital Equipment Ltd: Pension Scheme

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise in advance: I will not be here at the end because I will be in a meeting with Equitable Life, which was just mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). May I make one positive suggestion, almost as an intervention, open to those pension funds, trade union funds and insurance companies that hold our money and own Hewlett Packard shares? They should ask HP whether it thinks it is socially responsible to discriminate between the different groups of UK employees it has taken over by acquisition. It seems that it should be asked to say to its shareholders—whether or not at the annual general meeting—whether it thinks the savings it is making are justified and whether it would like to illustrate what the pension arrangements are for their top executives and what those are for those who were in businesses in Ayrshire and other parts of the United Kingdom when it made its decisions. Is it lawfully open to putting the pensioners in the situation suggested by the hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) and for Central Ayrshire? If so, it should do that without delay.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Front Benchers. You will have noticed that we have more time than we might have expected, which means we can allow about 10 minutes—probably no more—for the SNP and Labour Front Benchers and about 20 minutes for the Minister. You are not obliged to take that time, and make sure you leave at least three or four minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

In addition to the Disability Confident scheme, we are trialling the small employer offer, which will provide some additional support to those who may have less capacity within their own organisation. We are also working closely with the Health and Safety Executive, with its reach to SMEs, to target our services better.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Recent analysis suggests that as well as an employment gap, there is a wage gap of about 13% between disabled workers and their non-disabled counterparts. What is the Minister going to do to raise employers’ awareness of this abuse?

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to keep our VIPs waiting too long—and they are our VIPs today—but there are a couple more Members whom I wish to accommodate.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The latest analysis shows that the young people referred to in Question 3 stand to lose between £30,000 and £20,000 over their retirement, as a direct result of Government policy. Will the Minister explain how that contributes to intergenerational fairness?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The whole purpose of the auto-enrolment system is to make sure that people can supplement the state pension. At the moment, 10 million people are eligible for auto-enrolment, and we expect 9 million of them to take up that offer. Those 9 million people will end up saving and, in many cases, saving more than they do at present.

Personal Independence Payments

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to the Minister. He talked about the increase in the number of disabled people claiming PIP, but can he explain the impact assessment of the 2012—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but in a half-hour debate it is not customary for a Front Bencher to intervene.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Apologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper]

Why not allow Capita to film those—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Let me make some progress and then, if I have time, I will take some more interventions.

The hon. Member for Wrexham made a fair point about the limited time for a claim. It is actually a month, but people can ask for longer. They automatically get two weeks without any questions, and further extensions are considered depending on the circumstances. For example, if somebody says, “I will need assistance in filling the form in”, additional time will be given. If people struggle to fill in the initial forms on their own for a variety of reasons, the Department will send people to help them do so as quickly as possible.

As I highlighted earlier, the PIP forms are shorter and simpler than the old DLA forms. That does not mean that they are absolutely perfect yet. However, part of my role and my officials’ role is that we regularly meet charities, other stakeholders and users of the service, who make suggestions. There are continuous improvements, and I would expect that to keep happening. The hon. Gentleman raised a fair point, and we have a taskforce on our wider communication, with representatives from all the major charities going through things with a fine-toothed comb. I am grateful for all their help and support in that regard.

At the very beginning of the process, if an individual has a condition that means that we have concerns about their ability to return forms, that is flagged up so that we do not just automatically let them drop off the system. We can then be proactive in trying to contact them and contract people who can provide support for them, to make sure, as I say, that they do not simply drop out of the system. That is a very important point.

We are constantly reviewing the quality of the system—that is really important—and one change we made recently was to add a further 10 days for the assessment providers to be able to gather and consider further evidence. That came about because of the 60%-odd success rate in the appeal process, which a number of Members have mentioned. To put that into context, it involves about 2% of total claimants; as I have said, about 1.3 million people have gone through the system. When I first became the Minister and I saw the figure on successful appeals, the first thing I did was to visit the Cardiff office. I said, “Right. Presumably every time one of these is assessed on appeal, you down tools, sit down, analyse what we have done and make sure we never do that again.” Actually, more often than not a decision is overturned because of additional evidence that has been provided—the key word is “additional”—either oral or written. So in theory the decision at the beginning was right, based on the evidence that was given, but we as a Department rightly provide people with two further opportunities to submit additional evidence for a reconsideration.

All Members will share our frustration in this sense—in an ideal world someone would phone up for a claim, give their national insurance number, we would have full access to all their medical records and they would not have to go and find the reports from their doctor or occupational therapist. Former Governments had a good go at achieving that, but for a variety of reasons it has not happened. We therefore ask people to submit new evidence.

A typical example of what can go wrong for a claimant is that they get their GP’s evidence and put that in with their application, but they do not think to get the evidence from their occupational therapist. However, when we send them the letter that does not give them the benefit rate that they were hoping for, the information in it is clear enough for them to think, “Ah! If only I had done that.” They then have those two further opportunities to submit evidence. So the majority of the 65% or so successful appeals are because of additional evidence being submitted, not because of mistakes in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

We have just added a further 10 days to the process, recognising that point. We want to get the right decision for the claimant first time. That is an absolute given, but we rely on individuals to present evidence. Everyone is unique. Everyone involved is facing a different challenge, which is why they are applying for the benefit. In an ideal world, we would have access to all their information and no one would have to provide it, but as I have explained, that information is not available. My colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are doing some interesting work in this area, and we will look carefully at how that progresses, but we have added that extra time and are trying to be as clear as we can in the letters.

Beyond this debate, I will be interested to look more closely at the points that the hon. Member for Wrexham made about how the information that comes back to people is sometimes not clear enough. However, all claimants can request a copy of the full health professional’s report at any stage in the decision-making process. That is automatically triggered at the independent appeal stage, but it is available before that if people wish to have it.

We are also working on the online application process, to put all the information in one place. A lot of people want to be able to apply online for convenience. An added benefit will be that we can put additional help and support online, but people will still be able to claim in the traditional way if they want to.

I do not have long, but I want to address the point that was made about locations. All claimants in north Wales are offered—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Work Capability Assessments

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh]

Again, my hon. Friend has neatly anticipated my next point, which is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has identified ESA and PIP as a major risk to planned public spending targets, given the uncertainty of the estimates. The NAO has gone so far as to say that PIP and disability living allowance performance issues have been the main contributing factor in the Department’s inability to save any money in the spending review period up to 2015.

It is clear that both the Government and contractors are failing on their own terms, yet still the cash is handed over to failing contractors. We are locked into long contracts whereby Departments do not have the capability to improve performance. The original policy itself is flawed, but it is in the treatment of individuals unlucky enough to come into contact with the system that the whole rotten trade-off between cost cutting by the Government and profit maximisation by Maximus is most apparent. Specific cases abound, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be able to relay evidence of deeply concerning practice, which is why it is interesting to note that not a single Government Back Bencher is in the Chamber today. I will list a few from my case load.

One man with learning difficulties whose case was highlighted to me attended his work capability assessment, but during the assessment his support worker was shocked at the lack of care and attention given to him. When the assessment came through, there were some glaring factual errors, but none the less his ESA was docked, just in case he was in any doubt about what comes first—the person or the profit. On making his request for mandatory reconsideration, he was appalled to find out that he would be ineligible for ESA, which was his lifeline, until the reconsideration decision was made, and he was unable to meet the conditions placed on him for jobseeker’s allowance. He now faces months of waiting until his tribunal, and potentially an annual battle if assessors continue to lack understanding of his learning difficulty.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Whatever my hon. Friend’s views about the contractors, does she agree that it is the Government’s responsibility to secure contractors whose assessors have sufficient knowledge of progressive conditions such as muscular dystrophy and sufficient awareness and training in areas such as learning disabilities? The contractors are not primarily responsible for that; is it not the Government’s responsibility?

[Louise Haigh]

Of course, I completely agree. The Government’s policy sets the direction for the contractors, which is why the contractors have such a huge gap in their understanding, particularly of mental health issues.

In another case, one of my constituents applied for a home visit after being unable to make their assessment. She has now been waiting for more than two years and still has not received a date. Throughout that time, she has been surviving on a reduced rate and is struggling, as anyone would, to get by. She is just one of 280,000 people in an enormous backlog.

Despite the fact that the Government have made it notably harder for people to appeal their decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned, the latest figures show that 54% of appeals result in decisions being overturned. As in the case of the first constituent I mentioned, there seems to be an alarming trend of cases being rejected based on factual errors or even—I hesitate to say this—falsification. I have had several cases of people telling me that their assessment report bears absolutely no relation to the assessment that they experienced with Maximus or Atos. I am sure that other hon. Members have heard similar evidence. One or two cases could be dismissed as an honest mistake, but the situation appears to reveal a disconcerting pattern of behaviour that indicates that the trade-off between cost cutting and profit maximisation is being felt by very vulnerable people.

Maximus is not doing this to make a loss or out of the kindness of its heart, and it is failing on performance, which goes to the heart of the issue. Even if the Government were more concerned with the interests and wellbeing of the user, it would be extremely difficult for them to hold the contractors’ feet to the fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady has mentioned progressive conditions and delays that sometimes happen with mandatory reconsiderations. Can she think of any logical reason for the Government’s refusal to give statistics on the outcome of mandatory reconsiderations? Is there any obvious explanation for the withholding of that information?

[Patricia Gibson]

I am afraid the only possible reason I can think of for that is that the information does not present the work capability assessments in a flattering light. I leave others to draw their own conclusions about how bad it might be.

The worst thing about the system is that those caught up in the controversy and confusion are people with long-term health conditions, and some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. There is a lot of consensus in the Chamber about the need for an urgent review of the work capability assessment. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) pointed out, the cost is increasing, and it is expected that £595 million will be paid for 3.4 million assessments—about £190 per assessment. There has also been a problem with the recruitment of enough medical professionals to meet the demands of the assessments. At least £76 million of taxpayers’ money has been wasted through the failure to get a new IT system up and running more than two years after it was supposed to be in place. As has been mentioned, the National Audit Office report, which was released only last month, revealed that

“recent performance shows the Department has not tackled—and may even have exacerbated—some of these problems when setting up recent contracts”.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government’s planned cuts to housing benefit support for vulnerable people in specialist housing, including the elderly and people who are homeless, disabled or fleeing domestic violence, risk leading to the widespread closure of this accommodation; notes the concern from charities, housing associations, councils and others across the country about the severe effect of these cuts; further notes that supported housing has already suffered as a result of Government spending cuts and policy decisions; notes that the planned changes will apply to all new tenancies from April 2016; notes the clear evidence that the Government’s proposal to mitigate these cuts with discretionary housing payments will not work; and calls on the Government to urgently exempt supported housing from these housing benefit cuts and to consult fully with supported housing providers to safeguard this essential accommodation.

We have called the debate to give voice to hundreds of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people whose homes have been put at risk by the Government. It is very encouraging to know that 19 Members from both sides of the House wish to express their concern and to make a contribution to this debate.

We have also called the debate to expose the decision to challenge; and to expose it to compassion and to care. We want to expose it, too, to common sense. In his November spending review, the Chancellor announced that

“housing benefit in the social sector will be capped at the relevant local housing allowance.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1360.]

With one short, sweeping sentence, he put at risk almost all supported and sheltered housing for the frail elderly, the homeless, young adults leaving care, those suffering with dementia, people with mental illness or learning disabilities, veterans and women fleeing domestic violence. According to those who provide that type of housing, he condemns nearly half of all such housing schemes to closure. He has already caused the cancellation of building work on nearly 2,500 new homes for people in those groups. The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)—and I therefore joined forces to use the motion and the debate to draw attention to how the Chancellor’s crude housing benefit cut could hit the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who totally depend on such specialist housing, many of whom are the most vulnerable people with nowhere else to turn.

The National Housing Federation says that 156,000 homes—at least that number of people will be affected—are set to close. A survey by Inside Housing found that one in four supported housing providers are set to close everything, while 19 out of 20 say that they will close some of their supported accommodation.

Since the spending review, as you might expect, Mr Speaker, I have been asking Ministers for evidence regarding the decision. I asked the Minister for Housing and Planning how many elderly people will be affected by the Chancellor’s cut, but he told me that the Government do not know. I asked how many women fleeing from domestic violence will be affected—don’t know; how many people with mental health problems—don’t know; how many young people leaving care—don’t know. The Government do not even know how many people in supported housing receive the housing benefit that they plan to cut.

The Minister did tell me, however, that the Government have commissioned an evidence review. It started in December 2014 and should have been completed by November 2015, but was not. Why not? In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that the delay was due to

“the emerging complexity in the design and delivery of the review”

and “General Election Purdah restrictions”. The Minister therefore did not know what he was doing when he commissioned the review, and he must have been alone in the House and the country in not knowing that there was a general election in May last year. He says that the review will be ready later this year, so he does not even know when he will know what, at the moment, he does not know. What a shambles! What a serious dereliction of duty from a Government who should be making policy on the basis of evidence, especially when that policy affects the lives of so many very vulnerable people.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one helpful thing that the Minister could do during the debate would be to make it clear that the cap applies to housing benefit, not to the service charge applied to so many in supported accommodation?

[John Healey]

I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend, but I do not agree that that is the solution. It is absolutely clear, as the motion says, that the Government need to act immediately and confirm that they will exempt in full supported housing from these housing benefit cuts. They then need to work with housing providers to ensure that such housing can be developed and secured for the future. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that argument and will back us in the Lobby today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have listened and I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) exemplifies the brand “Same Old Tories”.

Let me make it clear from the start that I am a big fan of welfare reform. I believe that as we move to the second half of this decade, we need an active welfare system. However, the difficulty I have with measures such as the bedroom tax, the local housing allowance and caps on housing benefit is that I am not convinced that they are genuine welfare reforms. They ignore the supply problems in housing, rapacious landlords and the lack of specialist supportive accommodation. We treat all tenants as if their circumstances are the same. In fact, we simply passport cuts from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Communities and Local Government without any regard to the consequences.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This particular measure smacks of what in the 1960s we used to call “Rachmanism”. A lot of families will find themselves destitute on this route because they will not be able to pay those rents. It is a private landlord’s charter to make money.

[Steve McCabe]

Almost everyone now realises that we cannot have action on housing benefit without having action on rents. That is self-evident.

We are having this debate because those who are the targets of this change are not the workshy and the feckless. Too many of them are vulnerable people—the very people that many of us, including many Conservative Members, came into politics wanting to help, such as elderly people no longer fit to wholly look after themselves, veterans, youngsters leaving care and those fleeing domestic violence. The National Housing Federation claims the Chancellor’s changes could cost some people up to £60 a week, enough to force them to leave their accommodation and in some cases add to the growing number of casualties sleeping on our streets as a homelessness crisis sweeps our country like a plague.

The NHF also speculates that the changes may lead to the closure of thousands of homes. The kind of places we are talking about are retirement homes, active elderly establishments designed to improve the quality of life, supported accommodation and temporary accommodation. Is that really the kind of reform that Conservative Members want? There is already a 16,000 shortfall in meeting demand for supportive accommodation, and estimates say that is likely to double by the end of this Parliament.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I recently had the privilege of officially opening the Hare Hill extra care scheme, which has predicted that if the cap goes ahead, residents there will have to pay an extra £50 a week. That is completely unsustainable.

[Steve McCabe]

We have heard from some Government Members that they have the same fears. A lot now rides on this review.

Without exemption, we are about to witness a housing disaster for those with a clear learning disability who live in supported accommodation. After years of talking about rights and independence, are we seriously going to banish them to institutions and substandard care homes? Seven out of 10 people with a learning disability would prefer to live by themselves or with friends rather than in a registered care home or with their parents. Are they not entitled to aspire to that? Are they not entitled to that degree of independence? Cannot this society, whatever cuts we want to make, afford to show just a bit of generosity to such people? How will the Government ever succeed in closing places like Winterbourne View and delivering on NHS England’s 2015 strategy “Building the Right Support” without a supported housing plan for those with learning disabilities?

What about young people leaving care? How are they going to make the first step on the ladder to independence? Vulnerable young people, especially care leavers, should be excluded from the under-35 shared accommodation rule. We should hear that announced today. Is the Minister now in a position to tell us when the housing benefit regulations for those aged between 18 and 21 will be published? How, too, have we got to a situation where the cap applies to any tenancy signed after 1 April—only 62 days away—and where housing associations are still not clear about the plans?

The Minister has offered no details of his review, and his party has form on promising things during debates on which it subsequently backtracks. In fact, everyone knows there is a dangerous air of hubris about Government Ministers these days. I believe they might find a degree of support if these measures were intended for working-age adults in general-needs housing only, instead of being such a sweeping threat to the vulnerable.

Allowing for the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) when I intervened on him earlier, I believe that the Minister would ease the situation a little if he could say today that service charges will not be included in the cap. It is obvious that sheltered accommodation, support of housing schemes and extra care measures command higher rents than service charges since they are more expensive to build and manage, yet they bring huge savings to the NHS and other services. Some housing associations, including Midland Heart, as we heard earlier, fear that these proposals could cost a huge shortfall of over £1 million, and in some cases discretionary housing payments will not deal with the problem.

Before this debate concludes, the Minister needs to tell us that he has plans to protect vulnerable people. He needs to give some clue as to what they are, and he needs to demonstrate that he has listened to the plight of those in supportive accommodation. We want to hear that he will definitely exclude them from these measures.