Amendment of the Law

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

This Budget was summed up by the chief executive of Citizens Advice as a disappointment because

“People on the lowest income and those without savings benefit least”.

“But what about the increase in the personal allowance?”, I may hear those on the Government Benches say. There are two issues with that for the lowest-paid. First, there is the relationship with the benefits system. The lowest earners claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit lose 79p in every £1 that they gain through the increase in the personal allowance. Secondly, once they are out of tax, they are out of tax—they cannot gain any more for being even more out of tax. Raising the threshold at which national insurance is paid would be much more targeted at low-paid workers and enable them to keep much more of their income, and I am disappointed that that was not in the Budget.

Let us move on to the unexplained £12 billion saving in the social security budget. From where—or rather from whom—will this come? Will it be low-paid families who are claiming in-work benefits? They have already been hard hit by this Government. Will it be people with disabilities? They have already been hard hit by this Government. Will it be children in poverty or young people? They have already been hard hit by this Government. I suggest that people have a look at Real Life Reform’s reports to see the real stories of those who have been hit by this Government’s welfare changes. Those people are certainly not feeling any optimism. In fact, one of its most recent reports says that at least 75% of them were feeling “not at all” or “not very” optimistic about their chances for the future. Will this £12 billion saving be clarified before the election so that people know exactly what they are voting for and exactly who they are voting for to be hard hit even further?

“Northern powerhouse” is easy to say, and I would love us to have one, but what is actually being delivered to councils in the north by this Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition is cuts of 75% more than in the rest of the country. Simply devolving responsibility and cutting budgets will not empower anybody.

It is good that savings are not double-taxed, but I regret the level being set at £1,000 of interest. Most of my constituents can only dream of £1,000 in total savings. The Chancellor’s figures are predicated on an unprecedented rise in household debt. Surely we should be looking at ways of preventing that. It seems that debt for the country is bad, but debt for the individual is welcomed. We should at least be looking to provide help for those who fall into unmanageable debt. It is worth remembering that an extra 0.5% of interest on a rising mortgage rate will put a further 600,000 people at risk of losing their homes. Where is the help for low-income savers to build a small pot for a rainy day, keeping them out of the clutches of the payday lenders and rent-to-own companies like BrightHouse?

Talking of exploitation, what extra protection are the Government putting in place to prevent the most vulnerable from being ripped off by companies offering to help unlock their pension pot? This is Money spent one hour and £100 to set up a fake website that popped up on Google alongside the Government’s own site when a search was done for Pension Wise. We already know that this happens in many other areas. For example, there are many sites offering to help people get the European health card for a fee of £49, even though it is free. Con artists are already looking at this as a great opportunity to make a fast buck. What is being done to protect people who are googling for information on who can help? The helpline is not yet up and running, so what is being done to help those people now?

The Budget has been called a “rollercoaster” by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but I would rather describe it as a game of snakes and ladders. Unfortunately, the ladders appear to be targeted at the rich, while the snakes are for the poorest and most vulnerable. Let us stop playing games with people’s lives and make the next Budget a Labour Budget, with a strong economic foundation that delivers a fairer recovery for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is the point. Opposition Members do not like it very much, but let us follow that theme for a minute. The Leader of the Opposition extolled the virtues of the alternative to the long-term economic plan—the French plan, which was no economic plan as far as I understand it. We have now seen French unemployment go through the roof, employment rates fall and economic activity stagnate. London is now something like the sixth or seventh-largest French city because so many French people are coming to the UK because—we welcome them—they like to look for jobs.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

12. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

17. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The latest published figures for August 2014 showed that the number of people affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy has fallen by 75,000. This follows a general downward trend, bringing the number of those affected down from 547,000 in May 2013 to 472,000.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

In the Wigan borough, 3,386 people have had their housing benefit reduced due to the bedroom tax. Wigan & Leigh Housing estimates that it will take over seven years to re-house those who wish to downsize. Many of those affected have contacted me because, despite working, they are struggling to pay bills and feed their family. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the average income of those subject to the bedroom tax?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In previous speeches and today, the hon. Lady has talked about the fact that there are just not enough properties in her constituency to enable people to downsize. In fact, I understand that there are 2,700 people subject to the under-occupancy spare room subsidy, but something like 15,000 one and two-bedroom houses in the social sector properties in Wigan. There are many houses—many more than she might have laid out.

My point to the hon. Lady and the Opposition is that, in their opposition, they need to explain how they will afford it. The policy is saving some £500 million a year. It has already saved £830 million to date. They have no plans for substituting that, which means that their economic record is in tatters. After all, Labour, when in power, was the party that introduced that very policy for those in social sector private rented tenancies.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Kindly commentators may say that the bedroom tax is simply an example of a short-sighted, ill-thought-out, thorough administrative mess up, but actually it is worse than that: it is cruel, nasty, and the cause of a great deal of misery and hardship. It springs from the same policy mindset as the belief that food banks are somehow an acceptable part of the social fabric in the 21st century.

The mess-up theorists are right when it comes to how the bedroom tax works, because it does not work. The Government originally said that it was all about addressing overcrowding and freeing up bigger properties for bigger families, but the reality is different. In Wigan there is a real problem in finding tenants for three and four-bedroom houses, and they are remaining empty for long periods. In fact, the voids bill has risen to £1.1 million—double that of last year—because of the time it is taking to fill those properties.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is part of the problem with the bedroom tax that it was retrospective in nature? Many tenants were allocated those properties and accepted them in good faith. They now find themselves trapped and having to pay bills that they did not foresee.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Absolutely. It is simply not the case that hundreds of families in Wigan are packed together like sardines, waiting for people with extra rooms to move out. The Government say that it is about fairness and levelling the playing field between those in social housing and those who rent privately who cannot afford spare bedrooms. Again, that is not the case in Wigan where one-bedroom properties are much rarer and people in the private rented sector can have a spare bedroom without paying for the privilege. That is because—contrary to the myth perpetrated by Government Members—the local housing allowance does not exactly work in the same way. It was not introduced retrospectively, and it is based on the average rent in an area for the size of property. Therefore, if a family can find a larger property that remains within the LHA rate, they can rent it with no penalty, as can be the case in Wigan.

Even if it were possible for a family to move easily to a smaller property, what would be the consequences? After all, a “spare”, or to put it crudely, “extra” room measure takes no account of disabled people’s adapted homes, foster parents who need rooms to take children in, separated parents who share custody of a child, or the grandparent in my constituency—as I know, grandparents are not always pensioners—who looks after her daughter’s child while she works nights. She would have to move.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I have had situations in Bristol where the housing department has decided that someone needs a second bedroom, but the housing benefit people have said that they are eligible for the bedroom tax. On one hand it is judged that someone does need an extra room, but on the other they are told that they have to pay for it. Is that not grossly unfair?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Absolutely, and that is the problem with a discretionary payment. Do we really want people to move every time their circumstances change? Let us look at it logically. A young couple move into a one-bedroom flat. They have a child so they move to a two-bedroom flat. Then they have another child. The children start school and can share a bedroom for a certain time, but when the first child is older the family move again to a three-bedroom property. Then, when the eldest child is 18, they move back to the two-bedroom flat. Then they go to a one-bedroom flat. Is that not a sure way to break down communities, take away social cohesion and spoil children’s education just when they need it? However, that point is academic, because, as I said, there just are not the properties available for people to move around like that. People are not chess pieces.

Perhaps the Government know that. This is not really about overcrowding, but saving money. Even by that yardstick, however, it still does not work. The Department for Work and Pensions assessment has been downgraded a number of times. It now appears that the cost of dealing with the debt, eviction, abandonment of properties and widespread misery and mental health problems caused by this pernicious tax might mean that cash savings are minimal or non-existent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Not at the moment.

Debt, eviction and widespread misery are what we are talking about. They are the result of the Government’s reform. People have not been given a choice. If they cannot move to a property with fewer bedrooms, they have to make up the rent difference themselves. For tenants in Wigan, the financial impact ranges from nearly £10 a week to nearly £25 a week, or £1,273 a year. That is a lot of money to find on a low income. As I said, they cannot move because there is a shortage of housing, so they have nowhere to go, are staying put and building up debts. One clear consequence of the policy is the build-up of rent arrears. Figures from my constituency demonstrate that 44% of under-occupation households were in arrears in March 2014. The amount of arrears from the 3,319 households was £381,000, with £225,000 solely attributable to the under-occupation charge. That is not a good outcome for a local authority trying to balance its budget, and it is not good for the people themselves, who are at risk of being evicted because they simply cannot find the extra money to pay their rent. It is bad for tenants and it is bad for the councils that are trying to balance compassion with getting the money in. The only alternative to building up debts is to cut down on essentials, such as heating and food. I think we can certainly conclude that the bedroom tax has played its part in pushing people towards food banks, which have surely become the defining image of the Government in their dying days.

It is not too late for the Government to do the right thing and scrap this cruel and unfair tax. It has not given them what they wanted—budget savings—and has not helped to end overcrowding or make our housing system fairer. All it has done is to make poor people more stressed and desperate, living with the constant uncertainty of discretionary housing payments. I stress the word “discretionary”, because there is nothing certain about them at all. The human cost of the policy does not justify any savings that may have been made. I urge Government Members to look at that at Christmas and vote with the Labour party.

Benefit Sanctioning

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are people who take advantage of any system, there are people who avoid their tax obligations, and so on. The point I am seeking to make is that if we design a system with the stated objective that he describes—supporting people back into work and taking sanctions against those who deliberately avoid it—we have to measure the effectiveness of the system against its stated objectives. My contention is that the operation of the system is failing that objective, so I ask myself why these seemingly illogical sanctioning decisions are being made.

Coincidentally, last Thursday I was out knocking on doors and meeting constituents, and I knocked on the door of a jobcentre worker. She described to me a range of issues that she faced in her daily work. I happened to mention that we were having this debate this morning, and she immediately responded by talking about the pressure that she and her colleagues felt they were being put under to impose sanctions.

That is a serious point. Indeed, in a survey of staff within the Department for Work and Pensions that was conducted by the Public and Commercial Services Union, 23% of union members surveyed said they had been given explicit targets for referring claimants for sanctions; 36% stated that they had been placed on a performance improvement plan for not making enough sanctions referrals; and 10% said that they had gone through poor performance procedures for not making enough sanctions referrals.

I know that the Government will say that there is no pressure to sanction, but the DWP acknowledges that statistics on sanctions are collated centrally and that local jobcentre managers will be contacted if their performance is out of line with that of other jobcentres. If this is a matter of good management, and no league tables are being compiled and no targets are being set, why is a lower level of sanctions seen as a sign of poor performance by a jobcentre manager?

Turning to how the situation can be improved, I start on a positive note. The Government’s independent review of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions carried out by Matthew Oakley was certainly a welcome step. Although its remit was limited—I will come on to that point shortly— it made some important suggestions about how communications and processes within the JSA sanctioning system can be improved.

I will not go into details, but a key point to take from that review is the lack of understanding between the claimant and the jobcentre. That chimes exactly with what Sheffield Citizens Advice is saying: too many claimants are not being adequately or appropriately informed of what is expected from them in the first place. They are not being informed about what they have done wrong when they have been sanctioned, and how to avoid the situation happening again.

The Sheffield Citizens Advice report chimes with the points that Matthew Oakley made. It says:

“A common experience is that they realise that no money has been paid into the bank first and then later get a letter stating that their benefits have been stopped.”

Will the Minister say what school of behavioural economics that sort of approach comes from? If a jobseeker does not understand the agreement that they have entered into, how does sanctioning achieve its aim, and how can sanctioning serve as a disincentive if a jobseeker does not know what behaviour triggers a sanction?

Perhaps Tony, whom I mentioned earlier and is mentioned in the report, was told that he needed to do more jobsearching, or perhaps he was sent a letter to that effect. That might be the case; I am not clear on that point. However, I know from talking to other constituents that such letters have led to sanctioning when they have not been responded to properly. The problem is that Tony cannot read; he has learning disabilities. He wants to work, but in that context the letter is meaningless, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that jobcentre staff are sensitive to such barriers—the barriers that claimants face in engaging with them? As I have said, it is positive that the DWP has responded to the Oakley review by setting up a specialist team to look at communications, but I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the work of that team and outlined exactly what has changed as a result of its work. Will she also address some of the other recommendations in the report when she responds to the debate?

Many claimants tell Citizens Advice that they were not aware that they had been sanctioned until they contacted the jobcentre after finding out that they had no money in their bank account. Subsequent decision letters are often poorly worded, and without a clear explanation as to the misconduct that led to the imposition of sanctions. I urge the Minister to respond to the following proposals to address this issue: the wording of decision letters should be reviewed, so as to provide more detailed information about what led to the sanction, and to give information about the possible knock-on consequences of not responding to the decision letter; a sanction should not be put into effect until the decision letter notifying the claimant has been sent and a reasonable time for it to be delivered has passed; and notification letters should clearly inform the claimant of their right to challenge the sanction, explaining how to do so and, where appropriate, how to access hardship payments.

I say that because the Sheffield Citizens Advice report details how sanctions are often imposed because claimants failed to carry out agreed steps or activities even though many of them face barriers—through language, caring responsibilities or health problems—that mean they could not reasonably have carried out the agreed steps. That is an important point: they could not reasonably have been expected to respond. Other claimants do not understand what has been agreed and, according to the report, jobcentre staff are not aware of the genuine barriers that some claimants face.

I urge the Minister to respond to the following proposals to address this situation. First, jobcentres should make claimants aware that they have a say in the content of jobseekers’ agreements, and that this is a two-way process that should have claimants’ full engagement. It is supposed to be a partnership leading people into work. Claimants should be made aware that they have a right to have the agreement reviewed if they are not happy with the content.

Secondly, jobcentres should take whatever steps are necessary to be certain that all relevant factors that could possibly act as a barrier to work have been taken fully into account when deciding on the content of a jobseeker’s agreement. I have already cited some of the barriers that exist. Thirdly, jobcentre staff should be invited to awareness training about the practical and specific difficulties faced by some claimants; those difficulties may be learning disabilities, mental health issues or language barriers. I make this proposal because the Minister will agree that without workable, reasonable and well-understood agreements between jobcentres and claimants, the process is bound to fail, and if it fails it will clearly cause extraordinary hardship. I visited a food bank that I helped to establish in the heart of my constituency. The increase in the demand for its services is in significant part due to the increase in benefits sanctioning—the same is reported by other food banks across the city.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In my constituency, Compassion in Action provides a food bank that covers the whole of Wigan. The charity’s statistics show that 37% of the people who go there do so as a result of being sanctioned. One individual who had gone to the food bank had actually received training for a month with a guaranteed job at the end of it; he had found that job himself. His employer was willing to say to jobcentre staff that he needed the individual there every day that month, but the individual was sanctioned for that month and Compassion in Action kept him fed.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which echoes many reports I have received from the food banks in my constituency. The desperate level of hardship that we are talking about needs to be understood in the House. We understand that food banks provide a weekly food parcel, but when I recently spoke to colleagues at the S2 Food Bank in Sheffield, they pointed out that they were now receiving demand for food parcels containing cold food that would not require heating as people did not have enough money not only for food but for basic fuel supplies. People are living in houses or flats illuminated by candles and eating cold food provided by food banks. That is desperate hardship.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this important debate. I was sorry to hear the aggressive tone with which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) concluded, because this debate needs elevating above party politics.

I am proud to represent a constituency that has this country’s fourth most deprived ward, which is where our local jobcentre is sited. Just over the road in Blackpool South is the most deprived ward in the country. Our jobcentre deals with a vast range of highly vulnerable people with complex needs, including mental health problems, learning disabilities and addictions of one sort or another.

The walk from the jobcentre to my constituency office is 30 seconds, and I have dealt with numerous cases involving the word “sanctions” over the past four and a half years. I have seen the ebb and flow and the changing patterns in how the Department for Work and Pensions has sought to deal with the matter. It would be wrong of me not to make the effort to visit the local Jobcentre Plus to discuss why all this is occurring, what is going on and what is lying behind it. What truth lies behind the things that I read in the newspaper about targets and inappropriate sanctions? There is an element of black and white here.

The system has problems, many brought out by the Oakley review, that the Government are now dealing with by accepting the review’s 17 recommendations. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that acceptance applies not only to the sanctions imposed on those participating in the back-to-work schemes that fell within the remit of the Oakley review, but to the two thirds of sanctions that were not covered by Mr Oakley.

It is a fair point that there is a lack of clarity about what people understand they are being asked to do. The welfare state is a complex thing to navigate in the first place, which is why we have bodies such as Citizens Advice. A lot of it can be off-putting.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Maynard]

I will give way to the hon. Lady as this is her specialist topic.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

There have been a lot of references to the citizens advice bureaux, which issued the valuable report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and provide help to the most vulnerable. Many of those bureaux, however, are under threat as local authorities are hard-pressed and cutting their budgets. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that today’s debate demonstrates the value of the advice and the saving to the state?

[Paul Maynard]

I agree entirely. One of my caseworkers also works part-time at the local citizens advice bureau; her experience in the one role helps her in the other, and vice-versa.

What is not made sufficiently clear to all claimants of jobseeker’s allowance is that participation in any activity to get claimants closer to the workplace, whether computer or other skills training, does not invalidate the obligation to continue job-seeking activities. That is often the golden thread running through so many of the sanction cases that come across my desk. That central and essential point is somehow lost on people and, given that it is so central, I urge the DWP to make it much clearer.

What might be driving the ESA issue in particular, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, is the lack of freedom that Work programme providers have not to refer an infringement on for a further decision. That seems to be building into the system an accelerator of the number of referrals on potential sanctions. I urge the Minister to look at how we can build more flexibility into the system so that Work programme providers may choose not to refer if they deem that the claimant has a good reason.

I was struck by the reference of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central to the number of increasing incidents. We can all argue over the figures—some people cite 4.5 million—and I am sure that we will argue about them in the Select Committee, but the essential point to me is that any change in the welfare state or in any particular benefit inevitably creates confusion for those who have to administer the system and for those seeking to navigate it as claimants.

We have seen tremendous changes in the benefits system in recent years—new benefits coming in and new requirements being placed on claimants, none more so than the claimant commitment—and that has required a great degree of comprehension on the part of many of those applying for JSA. Many have none the less found the new document off-putting. Yes, it is certainly personalised, but it is still a matter of putting ticks in boxes as they apply to the individual, so the personalisation is a little limited. It still requires a variety of boxes to be ticked, rather than being built around the needs of an individual. That still creates problems.

I am also struck by the number of people making the journey over to my office from the jobcentre who say, “I have been sanctioned”, when on investigation no sanction is officially part of the story. To me, that was an anecdotal impression—that people said that they were being sanctioned, but were not being sanctioned—so I was intrigued to read in the Oakley report that DWP research had found that 28% of JSA claimants had said that they had been sanctioned in some way, shape or form. Once the case load was reviewed, it turned out that only 11% of claimants had been sanctioned.

I am not saying that those individuals were in any way seeking to misrepresent what had occurred. Once again, benefit claims can be complex, and the amount that one receives each week can change according to a wide range of factors, such as social fund repayments, late payment of bills or the Child Support Agency—the list is endless.

Universal Credit

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The answer is that I have not, but my hon. Friend probably reached that conclusion after the earlier statement made by the hon. Member for Leeds West, which was really miserable. That is Labour’s position: its Members hate the idea that we are doing this securely and safely. They say that they support it in principle, but attack everything to do with it and never miss a chance to tell everybody how terrible it is when, in actual fact, if they visited and talked to claimants rather than just dash out of the office, they would find that those who are on universal credit think it is the best thing that has happened and it is helping them enormously.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that 40,000 people have made a claim and 17,850 are in payment, which is less than 1% of the total number affected. In my area, which is a pilot area, local charities that operate food banks say that delays in processing are a significant reason for single people applying for their help. How will the Secretary of State ensure an improvement in processing time if he cannot even deal with 1% at the moment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Actually, the number of delays in processing has fallen since this Government came to office. There are now fewer cases of delayed payments. The universal credit process will ensure that even that is improved on, as the automatic payments work quite quickly. All of the centres already provide advice on debt management and any particular personal problems people may have. There are debt advisers available and we are also ready to provide advanced payments if people have such problems. That is all part of the services delivered locally through universal credit. If the hon. Lady wants to raise a particular problem, I would be very happy to deal with it, as would the jobcentre. Jobcentres are able to pay money early to people, and if the hon. Lady has a problem case they will certainly be able to help her.

Separated Families Initiative

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I understand that the Minister for Pensions, who normally leads for the Government on this area, is unable to be here today, but I am sure we can have a helpful and productive debate. I welcome the Minister for Employment in his place.

Within the past year, the Government have made significant changes to child maintenance policy, implementing the legislation that went through as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. First, the Child Support Agency has been wound down. Pre-existing child maintenance arrangements, which are used by nearly 2 million parents, are being terminated over the next three years. Secondly, all would-be applicants to its statutory replacement, the child maintenance service, must first talk to the child maintenance options service, where they are encouraged to make their own arrangements instead. Finally, for those parents who choose to use the CMS, a £20 application charge has been introduced, along with collection charges if parents fail to pay maintenance.

The clear policy intent is to encourage parents to sort out their own arrangements following relationship breakdown. The Government’s argument has been—and, I presume, remains—that family-based arrangements, as they are being called, will be better, because payers will be happier to pay if they have made the arrangements themselves. Further to that, the Government have asserted that the statutory system that has been in place for some years makes relationships between separated parties worse, because it creates bad feeling and anger. They think that the system might reduce willingness to pay, and encourage payers to look for a way to avoid payment.

Throughout, I have been a sceptic about that line of argument. In my experience, the circumstances of separation generate considerable anger and distress, and it is those feelings that often have to be worked with and worked through. As the period of separation continues, a failure to pay maintenance causes ongoing bad feeling. We know that parents with care suffer considerable financial detriment after separation. Indeed, generally both parties to a divorce suffer financial detriment, but the parent with care, whatever their gender, is the one who, in all the research, suffers the most. If proper payment arrangements are not in place, considerable resentment and anger can build up.

Given the Government’s approach, and that the reform is partly about trying to get people to change their behaviour, it is hugely important to ensure that parents get the sort of practical help and support they need to enable them to come to workable arrangements, especially given the changes to legal aid, which mean that people might not be getting the level of legal assistance they once had. That is where the £20 million Help and Support for Separated Families programme is supposed to come in. I will henceforth refer to it as HSSF, rather than saying the entire mouthful. I know it is not always terribly friendly to use abbreviations, but not using this one would become cumbersome and clumsy. I am afraid that the research I have undertaken shows that the programme of support for separating and separated families is piecemeal and inadequate.

There are four main initiatives that come under the HSSF programme, and I will set out my concerns on each in turn. The first is the Sorting out Separation service, which is a key online information and support resource for separated parents, signposting them to relevant help. Between November 2012 and January 2014, only 9,132 users clicked on a signpost to an external organisation, compared with the original target of 260,000. More people visited the front page, but the important thing is whether people are following through to get the more detailed help they need, because the initial information on the website is not sufficient to allow people to enter into arrangements. Given that the website cost more than £400,000 to set up—that was the figure by January, at least—it has cost more than £45 for every user signposted. I emphasise that the figures for this year come after an attempted redesign, which has clearly had a limited effect.

An evaluation commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions and carried out between February and June last year reported that users were often unclear about the purpose of the site and the range of information it offered. They were frustrated by the low level of detail supplied prior to signposting. Videos on the site were felt to be “unreal”, with unrealistically positive endings, and a potentially useful action planning tool was criticised for offering only general signposting and not tailored information. Of particular concern, given that existing formal statutory arrangements are coming to an end, was the finding that the site was “less relevant and useful” for longer-term separated parents. Some 70% of the parents who will have their CSA cases closed have been separated for five years or longer, 40% have no contact with the other parent and 14% describe relations as “not at all friendly”. The inadequacy of the Sorting out Separation service might mean that they will find it unhelpful, and if they find it unhelpful, they will not be able to enter into new informal arrangements and will find themselves back in the formal system through the new CMS.

In April, the Minister for Pensions said that the Department was

“in the process of considering the future direction of the Sorting out Separation web app and will shortly be taking steps to improve the profile of the app through search engine optimisation.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 214W.]

Can the Minister for Employment tell us what the future of the service is, whether usage beyond the home page has risen and what steps have been taken to improve the content so that long-term separated parents are catered for?

The second arm of the HSSF programme funding is the co-ordinated telephone network. It is a telephone service provided by four organisations: Relate, Family Lives, the National Youth Advocacy Service, and Wikivorce. The service began full operation in March 2014 at a cost of £344,000. While I respect all the organisations concerned and the work they do, it is questionable whether they can provide the scale of support necessary for separating and separated parents across the country. Can the Minister tell us more about how the network is working in practice and how many parents have used it?

The third initiative of the HSSF programme is what the Government’s original White Paper referred to as a “quality mark”. It was to

“become a mark that parents can recognise and trust, so they know the service they are accessing is of a consistently high quality and will be able to help them to work together with the other parent.”

It was developed at a cost of £136,500, and 35 organisations have so far been awarded what is now called the HSSF mark. My concern is that the mark is not well understood or even recognised by parents. My impression is that the organisations that put a lot of work into applying for and being awarded the mark have seen little in return. I am unaware of any promotion of the mark to parents by the Department, so I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what steps are being taken in that regard.

The fourth and most significant element of the HSSF initiative is the innovation fund, which accounted for £14 million of the total £20 million to be spent in the current spending review period up to March 2015. According to the White Paper that preceded the legislation, the fund was set up

“to learn what works best in helping separating and separated parents to collaborate and resolve conflict in order to support their children”.

In the first round of funding in April 2013, £6.5 million was awarded to seven projects across the country over a two-year period. Between them, they anticipated reaching just over 280,000 parents. A second round of funding worth £3.4 million came on stream in April 2014 and was awarded to 10 further projects aiming to reach some 12,800 parents. For the first time, projects aimed at longer-term separated parents were also included. I accept that this is relatively small-scale innovation funding; bearing in mind that nearly 2 million parents who have arrangements through the CSA are being taken off that following the new legislation, innovation projects coming in that will reach only perhaps 8,000 or 10,000 parents will not make much of an impression on the large number of parents affected by this major change.

Since starting in Scotland on 14 March, the family decision making service—one of this year’s funded projects that provides internet and telephone advice from Children 1st, One Parent Families Scotland and the Scottish Child Law Centre—has seen more families making informal arrangements. A particularly innovative aspect of its work has been designing publicity material to appeal more to fathers, which has led to more men using the service than would typically be expected. However, only 13 months’ funding was made available, which is a very short time in which to judge the success of any project.

Moving beyond anecdotal evidence of performance is difficult. In the 18 months since the first tranche of money was awarded, we have received little in the way of objective information. In March, we learned in a parliamentary answer that, as at 31 January 2014, 3,724 parents had participated in the seven first-round projects. Although it was early days—I know that the Relate project started late—that does seem low nearly halfway through the two-year funding period compared with the expected figure of over 280,000 parents by the end of the round-one projects. Unless there has been substantial take-up since then, we will fall far short of what is still a modest number of parents coming into contact with such help and advice. Will the Minister give us an update on the numbers of parents who have participated in the seven round-one projects so far and how that compares with expected levels at this stage?

Evaluation has also been significantly delayed, partly due to Department concerns around data protection. That is particularly problematic given that many projects are coming to an end and closing, and staff are likely to move into new employment, meaning that any evaluation that does take place will happen while the projects are winding down, which seems unsatisfactory. Earlier this year, the Minister for Pensions confirmed that the Government were in the process of appointing an external specialist to lead on the evaluation work. Is the Minister who is present today in a position to tell us whether an external evaluator has been appointed, who they will be and what the time scale of the evaluation will be?

This is about not just getting the evaluation started, but what the criteria will be. It was disappointing to hear the Minister for Pensions state in January that the evaluation criteria for the 17 projects would be published with the final results. We therefore do not know the criteria, and will not know them until the evaluation has been carried out, so people have not had the opportunity to comment on whether the evaluation is appropriate. The difficulty that that presents is that, as far as I can establish, the evaluation will not include receipt of child maintenance as one of the criteria by which the success of the projects aimed at improving parental collaboration will be judged. That is despite the fact that the innovation fund projects flow directly from the child maintenance reforms, and despite the White Paper stating that the initiatives would

“seek to support parents to reach their own arrangements, therefore avoiding both the statutory child maintenance system”.

It seems odd that that particular aspect is not to be evaluated in the process. We will not necessarily know, even at the end, whether there has been any significant success in getting people to not only meet and talk, but enter into family-based arrangements, and in getting maintenance flowing.

The HSSF funding ends in March 2015. My final questions concern what future funding will be made available to support the initiative.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important subject, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She mentioned the schemes that have gone ahead, but is she as concerned as I am about the parts that did not go ahead—the local and face-to-face support that people were to be get in places where they felt comfortable? I know from personal experience how difficult separation is when one has a young child. There are many new agencies to contact, but is it not important that people can access advice from places where they feel comfortable?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is a hugely important part of the process. It is all very well to have information available through modern methods of dissemination—being able to get basic information online cannot be a bad thing—but signposting to other places appears to be lacking.

The process is personal and can lead to difficult periods in most people’s lives, and people do not necessarily get the best information from word of mouth. Family and friends can offer emotional support, but they do not always give people the best advice in such situations. As a family lawyer, I met people who had been told weird and wonderful things about what they could or could not get. Such sources can also be out of date, because people will talk about things that happened to them in the past. However useful such advice can be as a starting point, it is crucial that those who want to get more personal advice—many will—can do so, whether one-to-one, or in a group setting where people feel comfortable and can ask the silly questions that it takes confidence to ask. We do not appear to have reached the stage of even looking at that, but it is important that we do.

On the March 2015 date, and the innovation projects set up to test what worked and what did not, it would be helpful to know how much information we will have, because there has been little evaluation so far. What guarantees do we have that what has been found to work will be scaled up to the numbers necessary? Even beyond 2015, more than 1 million parents will have arrangements with the CSA that have yet to be closed down. In addition, all the people with new separations, whose relationships are only beginning to break down, will want to come forward for help. What system will be in place to help those families sort out their child maintenance collaboratively? If the Government are serious about wanting people to make such arrangements so that maintenance is paid for the benefit of the children, we have to ensure that proper support and advice is in place.

Affordable Homes Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

One thing I will miss when I eventually leave the House is the hon. Gentleman’s charm. I suspect I will not miss it for long, but I will miss it.

I looked back in detail at the local housing allowance legislation, which was introduced for new claimants living in the deregulated private sector from 7 April 2008. Following the Social Security Act 1986, the housing benefit scheme was introduced in April 1988. As the House knows, housing benefit is a means-tested benefit administered by local authorities. It is paid to eligible tenants who live in the social and private rented sectors. Entitlement to housing benefit is calculated by comparing the needs and resources of the household, taking the liability for rent payments into account in calculating household net income. Before local housing allowance was introduced, private sector tenants also claimed housing benefit.

On 17 October 2002, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), my county colleague, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced plans for a new form of housing benefit that could no longer be directly linked to rent. He described the plans as

“the biggest reform in Housing Benefit since the benefit began.”

One characteristic of housing benefit reforms is that Ministers always say that their reform is the biggest since the benefit began, but he did seek to make significant savings.

The new approach was introduced in nine pathfinder areas from November 2003 and was extended to a further nine areas from April 2005. At the time, this is how the Department for Work and Pensions described the aims and objectives of the local housing allowance:

“Local Housing Allowance…is the cornerstone of the Government’s Housing Benefit reform programme which aims to simplify Housing Benefit and ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform.”

Most hon. Members are sufficiently savvy to recognise the phrase

“ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform”

as Treasury-speak for making public sector savings. That is exactly what the Labour Government sought to do. The Department for Work and Pensions website at the time said:

“The fundamental aims of the LHA scheme are to promote…Fairness…LHA bases the maximum amount paid to tenants on the size, composition and location of the household. Benefit will no longer be based on actual rents but on median levels of rent within localities.”

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I will give way in a second.

The current Government have extended the same principle to social housing tenants of paying the benefit on the size and composition of household.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

So much did the Labour Government think their policy would work that they were going to allow tenants to retain up to £15 a week in surplus benefit, if they could make sufficient savings on their rent. We might not remember it now, however, but as part of the 2009 Budget, they announced that the local housing allowance would be amended from April 2010 to remove that provision:

“The Local Housing Allowance…was introduced in April 2008, and costs have exceeded the planned expenditure for this policy. To bring the cost into line with what is affordable, whilst still ensuring all recipients can afford their rent, the Budget announces that from April 2010 there will no longer be scope for anyone to receive more LHA than they have to pay in rent. Existing claimants will move onto the new arrangements on the anniversary of their claim.”

That makes it absolutely clear that the last Labour Government introduced these changes in housing benefit for tenants in the private rented sector entirely, solely and totally to save money and reduce the housing benefit bill.

The effect of the proposal was summarised thus:

“All new customers claiming Housing Benefit in the deregulated private sector on or after 5 April 2010 would not be entitled to any excess benefit over their contractual rent…Existing customers, including those in the former LHA Pathfinder areas, who are currently entitled to an excess payment of up to £15, would see a reduction in their benefit when their claims are reviewed, usually on the anniversary date of their claim.”

Contrary to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Rhondda, that change was retrospective. A lot of people who thought they would be better off by £15 a week suddenly discovered, as a consequence of that Budget, that that money had been taken away from them.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The right hon. Gentleman described this system as almost identical to the local housing allowance, but as he himself pointed out, the LHA is a median figure. In Wigan, therefore, somebody moving out of a three-bedroom local authority property can find a three-bedroom, non-social housing, private rented property at the median rent, while still being paid £10 a week more and receiving housing benefit. They could move out of and leave vacant a three-bedroom social housing property, but still have a three-bedroom property even though they only have one child.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady and other Labour Members are refusing to acknowledge some fundamental points about the Bill. She voted for the welfare cap and the Minister has said that the Bill would cost the Treasury £1 billion. If it were passed, therefore, and if, by any mischance, a Labour Government were to be elected next spring, they would have to find £1 billion of savings elsewhere in the welfare budget. If Labour votes in support of the Bill, it will behove Labour Front-Bench team, given that the Labour party is governed by collective responsibility just as much as the Government are, to tell the House and the country exactly where they would find £1 billion of savings elsewhere in the welfare budget to compensate for the cost of the Bill.

Universal Credit

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is what universal credit will deliver, and that is why delivering universal credit safely and securely is the key to the plan. The approvals have been signed off. All the work that is being done in this Parliament is approved by the Treasury, and the long-term strategic business case should be approved very shortly as well.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Free school meals are an incredibly important part of the benefits system. A number of teachers have said that some children come back after the summer break noticeably thinner. The Secretary of State promised an announcement on which universal credit recipients would be entitled to free school meals by summer 2011. What is the reason for the long delay, and when will that announcement be made?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Department for Education is making a decision about the best way to deliver free school meals. People who are eligible for free school meals will be eligible for them under the new arrangements. This is an opportunity to ensure that all those who really need free school meals actually get them. There are often problems in the existing system, so this is an opportunity to reform the system to improve the take-up and the accuracy.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

No one disputes the fact that there is a place for sanctions in the benefits system, because there has to be a fair way of dealing with the minority of claimants who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with requirements. However, I think that everyone would agree that sanctions must be fair, that they must not be unduly harsh or punitive and that they cannot be based on information that is inaccurate or misunderstood. For many people who are sanctioned, their understanding of the regime fails the test.

Ultimately, we all want to get people back into the labour market if they are fit and able and there are jobs for them. Sanctions that are disproportionate and unfair, ironically, will have precisely the opposite effect; they impoverish people and leave them less able to move from welfare to work. The sanctions regime was ramped up in late 2012. As we have heard, the imposition of a sanction means the temporary suspension of jobseeker’s allowance for a minimum of four weeks. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said, it is different for universal credit, which is “until engagement” plus seven days, which seems a lot fairer. The maximum sanction period is three years. Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, has rightly described that as “excessively harsh”.

I understand that the Government like to see themselves as taking a tough and no-nonsense approach, which implies that large numbers of claimants are really benefit cheats, but the fact is that, in my constituency and many others, overly harsh sanctions mean that families are going without essentials. A minimum of four weeks without benefits can lead to desperate measures, and many of my constituents are visiting food banks for the first time. I have evidence of that. Three advisers from my local citizens advice bureau were recently offered employment by the council on the welfare support desk in Wigan Life Centre. During February and March, those three workers assessed 560 applications for food bank parcels as genuine. Of those, 130—in only two months—were identified as stemming solely from the application of a benefit sanction. Ironically, I think that those were the lucky ones. They were not like the young man with learning difficulties who came to see me in my constituency office. He had been eating out of bins for three weeks because he did not understand the letter he received and thought that his benefits had been taken off him permanently. He had got the letter too late to attend the interview.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) that the sanctions are also counter-productive. Disproportionately long sanctions create barriers to the search for work. The four-week minimum means that claimants spend more time dealing with acute needs, such as obtaining food and heating, than looking for a job. Bureau advisers have reported to me that they see many clients who have been sanctioned spending a significant amount of time seeking alternative means to pay for essentials, such as food and utilities. Indeed, they are being forced into the hands of payday lenders, so they are getting into debt. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) said, benefits are not intended to pay debts.

Since the changes of late 2012, the number of people being sanctioned has soared. After the implementation of the new sanctions system in October 2012, there was an 11% rise in sanctions for jobseekers. The most recent full-year data show a 24% year-on-year rise in the number of sanctions for jobseekers. For ESA, the whole year shows an increase of 156%. In the period just after the ESA sanctions regime changed in December 2012, there was a 98% increase. That is a huge increase, and I cannot believe that that number of people deliberately did not engage with the system.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that we need to review the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. If the sanctions are getting more onerous, why are more people being caught by them? Surely we would expect harsher punishments to bring people into line and lessen infractions, if indeed their behaviour is deliberate. What better evidence is there that these reforms are being driven by cost-cutting targets and have little to do with helping people to find work? Jobcentre staff are incentivised to get people off the dole; they should be rewarded for getting people back into employment.

There would be more faith in the sanctions regime if it were based on good decision making and proper assessments of individuals, but all too frequently people cannot comply with it. I was recently given a case by my local citizens advice bureau. A mother attended with her 19-year-old son, who did not engage with the interview. He looked down, and he patently could not read the letters he had received. His mother answered all the questions. Every time he was asked a question, he just looked at his mum for an answer; he clearly could not understand. He lives at home with his parents. In July 2013, he applied for universal credit, which he was awarded. However, he did not attend his interview in September, or his seven other interviews, so he got a low-level sanction. On 9 December, he got a medium-level sanction. In all this time, his mum had not seen the letters. He obviously could not read them and did not understand what was going on.

Eventually, his mum found the letters, inquired of the jobcentre what was going on, and found that her son had been sanctioned for 891 days. She accompanied him to interviews in February and March but was told that nothing could be done about lifting the sanctions. He went to my local citizens advice bureau, which is in touch with the specialist support unit to establish whether this is consistent with regulations and whether anything can be done. It is obvious that the people at Jobcentre Plus did not have the time to assess this young man, to put it generously, and did not see that he would not understand any of the sanctions letters or requirements on complying for work.

There is plenty of other evidence of poor communication. In Wigan, a significant number of ESA recipients applying for food parcels have complained that the letters notifying them of the work capability assessment were not received until after the date of the assessment, causing them to be sanctioned. Others have said that they could not attend because they had a hospital appointment and only learned of the sanction when their JSA failed to arrive.

We clearly need a better understanding of the individual needs of claimants. If we are going to apply this sort of regime, Jobcentre Plus staff need to have the time and the ability to assess the people who are applying for benefits and ensure that the sanctions are fair. There are two ways of encouraging people into work—the carrot and the stick. It does not seem fair that on many occasions the wealthy get the carrot of tax cuts and the people on benefits get the stick of unduly harsh sanctions.

Under-Occupancy Penalty (North-West)

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

We are fast approaching the first anniversary of the bedroom tax, as I prefer to call it. Anniversaries are usually pleasant occasions, a time to celebrate and congratulate, but not this one. The legacy of the new tax is not benign; it is cruel and unfair. The tax has heaped hardship and misery on families already struggling with the rising cost of living and the increased personal indebtedness that have characterised the past few years. This is not the building-up of debt to pay for luxury items, as some would have it. Instead, increasing numbers of people are getting into arrears on basic household essentials such as food, rent and fuel.

Clearly, many of those people are turning to payday loans to get themselves through the week—borrowing to pay borrowing. The situation is all the more worrying because people are not only struggling to pay their everyday bills, which are increased by this cruel and unfair tax, but using high-cost credit to make ends meet. That results only in a downward spiral into further and further debt, with potentially catastrophic results. As Stepchange said in its response to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry:

“Households struggling to meet rental payments are far more likely to have high-cost credit—33 percent of tenants with rent arrears have payday loans, a two-thirds increase on those without rent arrears…Because of the urgent and regular nature of rental payments, we are particularly concerned about people facing payment difficulties turning to payday loans. Analysis of our clients shows that those with rent arrears are far more likely to have at least one payday loan.”

The bedroom tax simply adds another layer to the problems that people face.

Many social housing landlords work to help their tenants to improve their income, but they are faced with an impossible situation. Many housing associations have invested millions of pounds to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax, or spare room subsidy. Housing associations with tenants who have been affected spent on average £73,250, including on welfare and financial advice services, before April 2013 to help their residents to prepare and cope. Wigan and Leigh Housing, in my constituency, manages 22,500 properties on behalf of Wigan council. Recently, it had to deal with a tenant in arrears who also had more than 15 concurrent payday loans and no visible income other than benefits.

The fact is that the extra charge has tipped many households who were struggling but just coping into an unmanageable situation. Now many of those people are at risk of being evicted because they simply cannot find the extra money to pay their rent. Why has that happened? It has happened because people in social housing have been given a false choice, or rather no choice at all. They are told to move to a smaller property, or else pay the difference. Well, they cannot do so. There simply are not enough smaller homes to go around.

In Wigan in my constituency, we have a shortage of one and two-bedroom properties, so people who have had their housing benefit slashed have nowhere to go to. That is true of much of the north-west and indeed the north-east. It is not often that I agree with Lord Tebbit, but he said that spare rooms are “vital”. He said on the tax:

“I think we introduced that rather without thinking it through very well”.

Many social landlords in the north-west would agree with that .

In my constituency, 3,300 tenants are affected, with the reductions in housing benefit ranging from £517 a year to £1,273 a year. If those sums are to be found from somewhere, it is most likely they will be found by cutting down on essentials such as heating and food, because after all people must have a roof over their head. Often, the sums cannot be found, so arrears are rising.

Last month, a survey of the English housing associations carried out for the National Housing Federation by Ipsos MORI found that more than two thirds of their residents who have been hit by the bedroom tax are in rent arrears. That is the national average; the figure is higher in the north-west. In fact, the north-west has been the hardest hit part of the country, with 83,000 people seeing a cut in their housing benefit last year, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ own figures. In fact, that could be a serious underestimate; the figure could be as high as 110,000 people.

The DWP’s figures also show that Manchester is the hardest hit city, with more than 11,300 households affected and an average shortfall of a whopping £724 per year. Other cities such as Liverpool are not far behind. More than 10,700 families in Liverpool are coping with a housing benefit reduction. Data collected from 15 social landlords operating in Merseyside, including the Halton Housing Trust, Liverpool Mutual Homes and Riverside, found that arrears rose from £21.2 million at the end of December 2012 to £22.9 million at the end of December 2013, a rise of £1.7 million.

I will now cite some findings from the excellent Real Life Reform report. Statistics are often used to prove and disprove policies, but it is worth remembering that this change and all the other welfare policy changes impact on people’s homes and their lives. These reports give social housing tenants the chance to be heard and I am grateful for this opportunity to share tenants’ views and experiences.

Perhaps it is worth noting a comment from the facilitator of the report. She is a communications officer, not a front-line housing officer, and she was profoundly moved by the stories. She says that the people who contribute to such reports do not match the stereotypes of social housing tenants on benefits. They do not drink or smoke. They all work. They run voluntary groups. They have children doing well at school or university, or children bringing up their own families. They are dignified and private people who want to make meaningful contributions to their families and communities. However, they are desperately worried about how they will pay their basic bills. They are concerned about how their families are being affected. They are choosing between eating or heating and, most tellingly of all, they have given up hope of being happy. In total, 76% of the people surveyed in the report said that they were rarely optimistic and 55% said that they were never optimistic.

What of discretionary housing payments, a limited emergency fund provided for the most vulnerable households? Yes, they have helped some households to manage their situation better. However, there is simply not enough money going round and the stress of continually applying for a fund that is discretionary cannot be underestimated. It is no wonder that 83% of participants in the Real Life Reform report felt that their health, particularly their mental health, was being negatively affected.

Wigan and Leigh Housing has used discretionary housing payments to help to reduce the number of people facing debt from the bedroom tax, but it has only managed a reduction from 73% to 63%. During the past year, applications for such payments have risen by 302% on average in the north-west, but the overall arrears keep rising and with them the threat of eviction.

Housing associations and councils are doing all they can to avoid evicting residents, but they cannot simply write off unpaid rent. Many of them have to spend huge sums in legal fees to recover unpaid rents. There are other costs, too. What is not fully appreciated is the increase in tenancies ending through a notice or people simply abandoning their properties and walking away. Each vacant property costs an average of £3,000 to repair prior to re-letting. In my area, many are being left empty because we simply cannot let the four-bedroom properties. People do not want to take four-bedroom properties, particularly those in the one block of maisonettes that we have.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In talking about her own region, my hon. Friend is surely illustrating exactly why this tax was poorly planned and poorly thought out. There was talk about 1 million spare bedrooms, but the mix of housing and the size of housing are distributed so differently across the country. In my area, we have a shortage of large houses as well as a shortage of small houses. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy in this way.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. People are not chess pieces. They have lives, families and communities and simply will not move from Wigan to London or London to Wigan; it is not as easy as that. For example, some people, including a constituent of mine, have family support networks, but she is being asked to move, although her mother lives down the road and looks after her daughter daily, sometimes overnight while she works. If she has to move away because she cannot afford the spare room subsidy, she will be penalised and may have to give up her job.

There are lots of other costs as well. Many people live in adapted properties with a spare room. My constituent, Clare, is paraplegic and blind. She has two carers, 24 hours a day, but under the rules was only allowed a bedroom for one of them. Her property had significant adaptations and, should she move to a smaller property, the cost to adapt it would run into tens of thousands. She is depending on discretionary payments to stay in her current property and has to reapply every 13 weeks, with the stress that that brings. This penalty affects the sick and disabled and it makes no moral or financial sense.

I just want to make a quick aside about fairness. It is often said that the policy brings parity with the private rented sector. However, the penalty was introduced retrospectively, when local housing allowance was introduced for new tenancies. People could then make a choice when choosing a home. This tax affects people who have lived among friends and family for years, have built their lives in a community and are forced to pay to stay there or look elsewhere—in my constituency, that is often in the more expensive private sector, due to the shortage of one and two-bedroom properties.

We in the Opposition have been clear that we will scrap the bedroom tax because it is cruel and unfair. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation described the policy as

“an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families.”

I agree, but we will not scrap it just because of that. It does not work on any level. There is now a risk that the bedroom tax will cost more money than it saves. The National Housing Federation has said that the savings claimed by the Government are “highly questionable”, partly because those forced to move to the private rented sector will end up costing more in housing benefit. Nor does the policy deal with the problem of under-occupation. In fact, the Government’s costings on the yield raised from the under-occupation subsidy explicitly assume that people do not move into smaller properties. The DWP’s own impact assessment states:

“In many areas”—

as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said—

“this mismatch could mean that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size even if tenants wished to move and landlords were able to facilitate this movement.”

In Wigan, it would take more than seven years, at current vacancy levels, to re-house even the 30% of people affected who might wish to downsize.

It is clear that this policy, and any savings predicated on it, depend on people choosing to pay to stay in their communities, near friends and families. It affects those with disabilities, those struggling to get by and it is having a negative impact on their mental health. It is putting additional costs and pressures on social housing providers and, perversely, it is likely to increase the housing benefit bill by forcing people into the more expensive private sector. One year on, it is time to think again and repeal this unfair and unworkable policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I note that I am the only man taking part in this debate, which must be a first for the House of Commons. I hope there are many more debates in which men are in the minority. It is a shame that, all too often, debates involve men talking to men—probably with nobody listening.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this debate, not least because all too often in Westminster politics we think that, once we have pulled a lever, everything will suddenly change out in the rest of the country. Actually, the vast majority of policies advanced by any Government, of left or right, end up having to be implemented by local authorities, and this policy is a classic instance. In many cases, not just local authorities but a series of social landlords are involved.

The direct relationship between Government and those implementing the policy is not as clear as people might assume, which is one of the reasons why the Government have got some areas of the policy profoundly wrong. They did not do the groundwork to establish what the real situation is out in the wider country before enacting the policy.

This is the kind of policy that someone might dream up just before they go to bed or when they are in the shower. They suddenly think it is a brilliant idea because there is no official there to say, “Ah, but Minister.” By the time they have got into the office, they think it is the best idea ever. Unfortunately, they then meet other Ministers who are also desperate for a good idea, and they think, “That sounds like a good old wheeze. Let’s do that.”

The policy, as a whole, was advanced too rapidly. However shiny and new it might have seemed to the Government, I know a large number of Conservative Back Benchers who wish it had not been implemented and look forward to the day when the whole thing can go. All that glisters is not gold, and this has been a meretricious policy.

My first problem is that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) have said, the policy’s implementation has been fundamentally unfair. Both my hon. Friends have said that the significant difference between the Government’s policy and our policy, which addressed commercial landlords, is that the Government’s policy has been implemented retrospectively. In other words, it affects people who are already living in a property.

In recent months, we have discovered that people who live in social housing, particularly council housing or housing association properties, are more likely to live for long periods in the same property than anyone else in the housing market. Some may see that as a problem, but it also presents a significant challenge because the policy is radically changing people’s understanding of their home.

What I have just said does not apply to me because I moved so frequently as a child that I have always thought of wherever I lay my hat as my home. However, the vast majority of people live in the same house for 10, 15 or 20 years, and sometimes for much longer. In some constituencies in the north-west, there will be people who not only live in the house they moved into when they were first married, but live in the same street or estate in which the rest of their family have lived since the estate was first built. In some cases, they will have taken over the tenancy from their parents and have effectively lived in the same house all their lives.

The policy, of course, drives a coach and horses through that understanding of a home. Ultimately, it is profoundly—I want to say un-English, but I am Welsh and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East is Scottish—un-British not to think of the home of an Englishman or Englishwoman as their castle.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only family lives that are being destroyed? The aim was to build stable communities in which people support and help each other and run voluntary groups. The policy destroys communities, as well as lives.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely, not least because one of the key things that all parts of the House agree about is that we need to get more people into work. Particular families and communities have historically found it much more difficult to get into work. The issue is not only about whether work pays—although that is key and is why we originally supported the national minimum wage, facing down the howls of those who said it would lead to mass unemployment—but the support mechanisms that someone has when they first go into work. Otherwise, benefits are seen as more reliable, and if someone thinks that, they will stick with them.

If someone has child care responsibilities or care responsibilities for an adult relative, they need other family members close by. All too often since the bedroom tax was introduced, we have seen people forced to move to areas where they have no support, which makes it more difficult for them to get into work. Perhaps we Opposition Members too often rant and rave at Conservatives for being cruel, out of touch and not having any interest in the working poor—that has not always been true of them, historically—but some of the policies advanced, particularly those of the Department for Work and Pensions, have effectively cut off a nose to spite a face. They have seemed like savings and cuts, but in practice they have just added costs to the social welfare budget, which is why the Chancellor had to announce last week that he was increasing the estimate for welfare spending for this year by £1 billion and for next year by another £1 billion.

People are living myriad different lives, with different congregations of families and different community set-ups, social understandings and cultural mores, and it is incumbent on Ministers, particularly DWP Ministers, to work with the grain of human nature, rather than against it. The policy fundamentally works against the grain of human nature and the housing market.

All too often the Government have presumed that, because they said in theory that the policy is all about dealing with the mismatch of some properties being under-occupied and many properties being over-occupied, they have to get the families that are overcrowded to move into undercrowded properties. If everyone could step on to the pavement on one day, immediately swap and move into the next property, that might be true, and if there was an exact match of overcrowded and underused in each area—whether geographical, local authority or housing association—that presumption might work.

The facts on the ground, however, as we know from all the different surveys that have been done over the past year, are that there is a total mismatch. People have no choice about moving, downsizing or going to smaller properties, particularly in the short term. It might take them two, three, four, five, six, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, seven years to move, and that is why the measure is a tax. In the end, people have no choice and have to surrender that extra bit of money.

The £16 might seem like nothing to Ministers in a Department that thinks that pensioners might spend their pot on a Lamborghini, but that is a significant amount of money to my and my hon. Friends’ constituents, particularly when real wages have been depressed and the number of hours and amount of overtime that people are allowed to work have fallen. Many more people have been put on zero-hours contracts. In that environment, £16—or £25, if it is two rooms—extra cost a week is a significant amount of money, and that is why the policy is unfair. It might seem fair to put all the overcrowded people into the underused accommodation, but if no one has checked whether there is enough accommodation to do that, it ends up being unfair.

The evidence of the unfairness is that the Government have had to provide discretionary housing payment schemes for local authorities. With discretionary housing payments, the word I dislike most is “discretionary”, because it means that someone living in one local authority on one side of the road in the north-west might be granted a DHP, while someone on the other side of the road will not get that payment, for the single reason that they live in a different local authority.

There is an added problem with discretionary payments, which is that the local authority knows—let us say it is getting £1 million over a year—not to spend any in April, May or June. That happens every time the Government introduce such a system. The authority will start spending a little only in July, August and September, because it knows that the big numbers will come knocking on the door in December, January and February. That means that there is no consistency across the year.

The Minister revealed that fact—I do not think she intended to—when she was attacking one of my hon. Friends from Manchester about the discretionary housing payment system there. She said that it was outrageous that we were complaining about the amount available to Manchester last July and September, because the city had not spent that part of the year’s money. Of course the city had not spent it, because no local authority does. Local authorities are prudent and save money for when they will have to spend more, which is in winter, at Christmas and towards the end of the year. They have to save against what might be a particular rainy day. The Minister, by her own admission, has laid out that the policy is unfair.

As my hon. Friends said, the Government never expected everyone to move. They said:

“In many areas this mismatch could mean that there are insufficient properties to enable tenants to move to accommodation of an appropriate size even if tenants wished to move and landlords were able to facilitate this movement.”

If there was ever an ownership of the fact that the measure is a tax, that was it. It made clear that the Government know that many people will simply have to pay more money.

I disagree with the policy’s fundamental principles and also with how it was introduced. The Prime Minister more than once boldly stated at Prime Minister’s Question Time that no disabled people would be affected by the bedroom tax. He said that on countless occasions, but we know that two thirds of those affected, according to every survey that has been done in local authorities up and down the land, are disabled. The Prime Minister is closing his eyes to the truth, he does not know the truth or someone is not putting the truth in front of him. I do not know what it is, but the point is that the Prime Minister is completely and utterly misled. I am not saying that he has misled people; I am simply saying that he must be misled.

The other incompetence in how the Government have advanced the policy—we know the legislative incompetence: they brought forward the legislation quickly and then discovered a loophole some nine months into the process, or perhaps a little earlier—is that they are still going through this ludicrously bizarre process of denial about how many people are affected by the loophole. On one day earlier this year, the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, said in the House of Lords that an insignificant number of people were affected, the Minister here replied to a written question saying that she did not have any idea how many people were affected, and the Secretary of State said that between 3,000 and 5,000 people were affected.

Yesterday, after the urgent question in the Chamber, the Minister let it be known that the Department will provide £2.1 million for local authorities to do the trawling. That is just for the process of trawling, and not for the payments that will have to be made to those who were illegally charged. She says, and said again yesterday, that the £2.1 million applies to 5,000 people. Sometimes she says it quite angrily and sometimes she says it more emolliently; we will see which version we get today, although it looks like it will be the angry one, given the furrowed brow I am getting. I presume that the Minister can calculate for me how much that is per person. Is a trawl really going to cost £420 per person? By her own admission, the Minister has yet again suggested that the 5,000 figure is not right. I do not know whether it will be 40,000 in total, but it certainly will not be just 5,000.

The Minister has regularly pooh-poohed the statistics that the Opposition provide, but we are only going by the freedom of information requests that we have made to local authorities. Let us look at how some authorities in the north-west replied when we asked them how many households had been affected. Burnley borough council said 60, Bury metropolitan borough council said 83 and Chorley borough council said 32. Eden district council said 30, while Fylde borough council said 80. For Lancaster city council, the figure was 35. Preston city council said 124. South Ribble borough council said 22, and Stockport metropolitan borough council said 126.

It is true that I do not have figures for all local authorities, because, despite our being long past the date by which they should have replied to the FOI request, only 15 out of 39 local authorities in the north-west have replied. Even so, there are 2,609 cases in the north-west alone thus far.

The Minister has criticised me several times, saying that the figure of 480 that I provided for St Helens is incorrect, but we have never provided that figure. We said that there were 178 confirmed cases in St Helens—178 cases where people have already been paid back. Not included in the figure for the north-west, however, is what Liverpool city council states it has already paid back, which is 1,300 households. It is absolutely clear that the 5,000 figure that the Minister cites for the whole country will probably be exceeded in the north-west alone.

It could be said that this is all neither here nor there and that it is dancing on the head of a pin and just about statistics, but what it suggests to me is that the Department for Work and Pensions simply has not done its homework and does not know. I would be quite happy were the Minister to stand up and say, “You know what? I really don’t know what the numbers are. They may be 40,000 or 5,000. Let us see what they are.” However, I object to the Minister’s simply going into denial and saying that nothing is happening because it implies a degree of callous disregard for what is going on in people’s lives. Incidentally, the total number of cases that we have received from local authorities is, with no spin from us, 23,309. That figure is based on the responses of fewer than half the local authorities asked, so it is likely that the final figure will be much higher than the Minister has suggested.

The danger is that if the Department has got this wrong, what else has it got wrong? I am absolutely certain that the Government’s predicted savings will nowhere near be met. Indeed, I suspect that the total effect, including people claiming other benefits, such as out-of-work benefits, will end up costing the taxpayer more. I hope that the Government will one day provide the full details.

So many areas of the policy have been incompetently laid out, not least what counts as a bedroom. Last year, the Minister tried to say that people should take a sledgehammer to walls and knock them down and that that would change the rules. According to the Department for Work and Pensions guidance, however, it does not. Liverpool city council was sent an e-mail by the Department that flatly contradicted what the Minister said in the House yesterday afternoon about who qualifies to inherit a tenancy. According to the e-mail, those qualified include any child or relative of a “polygamous marriage”. I thought that polygamous marriages were illegal in this country, but that is the advice that the DWP has provided to the council. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that specific issue.

Some people who have been illegally forced to pay the bedroom tax will now, because of the loophole, have been given discretionary housing payments. What is the Minister’s advice to local authorities? To how many people does she think that it will apply? How much is it costing? Is the Department paying it or do local councils have to pay it? Will individuals have to pay that money back or are the Government writing it off? If so, how much will that be?

We have already heard about some of the problems caused by the faulty policy. Thousands more people are in arrears, which is a real problem for local authorities and for social landlords around the country. Thousands more have been evicted—not only a tragedy for the families and individuals concerned, but also a problem for social landlords.

The policy fails to address some big, long-term issues and has made them worse. When I come up to Westminster from south Wales, it often feels that there is something of an economic recovery going on and I can see house prices rising magnificently, but my experience elsewhere in the country is completely and utterly different. My anxiety is that an economy that is already heavily overloaded towards London and the south-east will become more so. It is a problem for the people of London and the south-east as house prices get further and further out of reach for ordinary people in ordinary jobs. I worry that the Government’s policies will make that worse.

In the 1980s, contrary to my party’s policy at the time, I completely supported the idea of people being able to buy their own council house or social housing. It was actually first piloted by a Labour authority in Newport. [Interruption.] That is not in the north-west, as I think you are about to warn me, Ms Dorries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I have heard various things—I will say that they are scare stories, because we have heard them before—about what would happen, and they have not happened. In fact—although at the moment this is just anecdotal—in the private sector house prices and rents are coming down, despite much of what the Opposition say; that is actually happening in Wales, which I visited last week.

What are the local authorities and housing associations doing? Some are redesignating homes with respect to their size. Knowsley is doing that. Salford is bringing empty houses into use and converting commercial property units into affordable homes. People are starting to build one-bedroom homes for the first time in a long time. Who would have believed it? Some people and areas are still building three-bedroom homes, despite knowing that they are not needed. One-bedroom homes are needed; they should constitute 60% of new builds. It is incredible that people who do not understand the stock still feel incentivised to build the wrong homes, because they will be paid for the bedrooms, whether they are used or not. That must all change.

We should all recognise the inequality in allowing social sector tenants full housing benefit for a spare bedroom while denying it to private sector tenants. The Opposition’s position seems to be that the policy is pernicious and evil when it affects social tenants, but acceptable when it affects private tenants; Labour introduced that policy in 2008. As has been pointed out many times before, there are two coherent positions: one is the Government’s, which asks anyone on benefits to contribute towards the cost of an extra bedroom; the other is to give anyone on benefits full housing benefit regardless of the size of the house that they need or whether or not they are under-occupying their property. The Opposition’s position is incoherent. It states that social tenants should not have to pay towards an extra bedroom, but private tenants should. We cannot have that.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does the Minister know about the housing position in Wigan, where, because of the shortage of one-bedroom properties, it is possible to rent a two-bedroom private property for less than the median housing allowance? That leads to the ludicrous situation in which someone moves out of a two-bedroom social rented property, because they must pay £14.65 a week to live there, into a two-bedroom private property, where the full rent is paid by housing benefit.

[Esther McVey]

We have had this discussion before with the Opposition. What the hon. Lady does not understand is that a full cycle is under way in that situation. When someone moves out of a home in one sector, someone else moves in. The 3,500 on the waiting list or the 1,500 who are living in overcrowded homes are moving, in this instance, from the private to the social rented sector. We cannot take only half the equation; we must think about who is moving where, and what the needs are. What might be an overpayment in one area is an underpayment in another, so there is a full circle that continues.