Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures produced by the ERSA last month show that more than 200,000 people have found work through the Work programme. They also show that the programme is effective at moving people into work and that job entries are rising from month to month. They clearly show improvements in performance as the programme matures.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The DWP’s own evaluation has shown that the Work programme is proving less successful at getting women than men into work, that it is particularly poor at getting lone parents into work, and that the black box approach is failing to deliver substantive personalised support. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the Work programme genuinely meets the needs of those furthest from the labour market?

[Mr Hoban]

The Work programme has been designed to allow providers to use a range of ways to help people back into work. We give them that flexibility. In return, they are paid only when they are successful. That contrasts with the schemes introduced by the previous Government, in which most of the money went in up front and providers were not paid by results. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that, under this Government, there are more women in work than ever before.

Jobs and Social Security

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I just want to pick up on one point and then I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

The same scant regard for general facts is apparent throughout the motion. The Opposition claim that long-term unemployment is now soaring, yet long-term unemployment nearly doubled in the two years before Labour left office, going from 396,000 to 783,000 in 2010. By the way, just so that the record is absolutely straight, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill says that Labour had got spending down, but welfare spending rose by 60% under the previous Government.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a moment, but I said that I was going to make these points.

Labour’s policies then went on to try to hide the true scale of the problem, by automatically moving people off jobseeker’s allowance into training allowances or short-term jobs, thus breaking their claim just before they reached the 12-month point. The Opposition claim today that long-term unemployment is up by more than 200,000 since the Work programme began, but in actual fact, comparing like for like, which means counting all those who were previously hidden on training allowances and other support, the total number on jobseeker’s allowance is about the same as it was at the start of the Work programme, so that point is complete nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall simply tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that he is wrong. I do not agree with his figures, and anyway, he served in government while the bill for welfare rose by 60% in real terms over the lifetime of that Government. Enough said: we took on a massive problem, and we have to deal with it.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I shall make some progress, but I promise to give way to the hon. Lady.

Let us deal with the final point made by the right hon. Gentleman in the motion: that somehow all this could be solved if only we did not cut, change or reform anything and implemented a bank bonus tax to fund a real jobs guarantee. Such a one-off tax would be worth £3.5 million. However, we have introduced an annual bank levy, which raises much more money over the period. The Opposition did not introduce such a levy when they were in power.

Let us look at the bank bonus tax that they propose. I love the fact that that tax is wheeled out whenever they are in a corner. It has already been used to cover the spending of £13.5 billion that they committed to make when reversing the VAT increase. It has been used for more capital spending—£5.8 billion—and again to reverse tax credit savings of £5.5 billion. It was used to build 25,000 extra homes—£1.2 billion. It was used again to reverse child benefit savings of £1.7 billion, and more and more.

It is a joke to keep wheeling out that ridiculous programme as an excuse for what the Opposition should be doing, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, is telling us what they would do instead, where they would make the necessary savings and how they would reform welfare. That is the main issue.

[Kate Green]

The debate has moved on, but I wanted to say that the rise in social security spending under the Labour Administration was not all in relation to out-of-work benefits. A large proportion related to better payments for children and working tax credit, which subsidised low pay.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree. The only way to look at these things is to consider the overall state of welfare spending. That is exactly how I look at it. As for the point about tax credit, much of it had nothing to do with going back to work, but it supported families for other reasons. The Opposition cannot separate what suits them from the other bits. We have a welfare budget, and they must own up to the fact that it rose by 60%.

Let me deal with what the Work programme really is. It supports 800,000 people—more than any previous programme—and data published yesterday show that it is successfully moving claimants off welfare rolls into jobs, so generating savings in the process. More than half those referred to the programme in June 2011 have since come off benefits, and about a third have spent the past three months off benefit, and a fifth have spent six months off benefit. Independent statistics published on Monday show that 207,000 people, as I have said, have been in work—a fifth of everyone on the programme. What is more, job entries are rising month on month. The figures that we published yesterday showed that in the past two months there was a 40% increase in attachments lasting six months.

We have rejected the old tendency that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill keeps coming back to—chucking money at programmes in the hope that people will say we are doing something because we are spending money. With the FND, Labour paid out 40% of the fee up front just for signing up someone. Firms never had to do much at all. Under the flexible new deal, the average up-front attachment fee was more than £1,500. More than £500 million was paid out in total, without any assurance of success at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

As others have said, the Work programme builds on a direction of travel that those on both sides of the House have been pursuing for a number of years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, the difficulty is not particularly with the concept; it is that there simply is not enough investment in the programme to produce the outcomes we need. The problem is that a lot of over-simplification of the issues that long-term workless people face means that we are failing to address some of the real drivers of worklessness and are allowing ourselves to be carried away by some incorrect and pervasive myths.

The first myth, which I am sorry to say has been repeated again this afternoon, is about a culture of worklessness and three generations of households where nobody has ever worked. These households do not exist; researchers have gone out looking for them and they are not there. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) looks doubtful, but what is there are households that have experienced, over the generations, sporadic and insecure employment. As Joseph Rowntree Foundation research carried out in 2010 by Teesside university has shown, there is no evidence whatever of a pervasive culture of worklessness among these households. Actually, the opposite is the case; many of the people now accessing the Work programme are and have always been desperate to work, and they have a history of employment, although it has not been sustainable employment. It is really important that we address the true underlying causes of worklessness.

Secondly, we recognise that skills are important in enabling people to access employment and to progress at work, but it is important to recognise that when that low-income group of workless people move into work, skills are not particularly well correlated with a long-term improvement in their incomes and do not predict particularly strong labour market success for that group. A lot of difficulties remain in respect of how skills strategies do not improve people’s labour market prospects. Some of the initiatives being taken forward by the Government are going to miss the mark. Too many apprenticeships are being offered at level 2, and we need to increase access to apprenticeships at higher levels. We are seeing a reduction in employer levels of training—they are down to low levels not seen since 1996. Poor-quality jobs also inhibit the demand for skills. Even if we upskill our work force, the skills investment will be wasted if the skilled jobs are not there for them to do. So one thing we have to invest in is the leadership and entrepreneurial skills of those who start up businesses and create jobs.

It is also important to understand that different groups in the workplace and in the labour market experience different barriers and obstructions to progressing at work. The Work programme has proved uneven in how some groups have done better and some have fared worse; interestingly, women and lone parents are shown to be doing quite badly in these early Work programme figures. That contrasts with a very strong record of success on lone parent employment under the new deal for lone parents offered by the previous Government. It is also deeply concerning that we still have an alarmingly high rate of unemployment among young black men—twice the rate among young white people—yet the Government are determined that the Work programme will be, in the words of Ministers, “colour-blind”. No specific measures will be taken to address the particular characteristics that affect that hard-hit group.

Equally, it is of concern—the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is no longer in his place, referred to this—that many of the new private sector jobs that are being created are part-time jobs. Some people prefer part-time work, but a large proportion are unable to access the full-time work that they want.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

The Minister clearly has a figure that he wants to offer me and I will be interested to hear it. I have heard reports just this week that in one workplace, employers are refusing to extend hours of work and are holding people to part-time contracts because they know that they do not have the resources to pay more.

[Mr Hoban]

As the hon. Lady is so keen on evidence-based policy making, let me point out that the last unemployment figures demonstrated that 80% of the people working part time wanted part-time work, as it helps them get back into the labour market after years of caring for people and being off sick.

[Kate Green]

That might be the case, but the Minister must also recognise that 40% of the new private sector jobs that have been created have been part time. He needs to be confident that that part-time work will lift families out of poverty, because far too often the evidence suggests that it will not. It certainly will not do so under the newly structured universal credit, as the rewards for working will be for one full-time breadwinner earner, reducing the opportunities for a second member of the same household to undertake the part-time work that the Minister is suggesting is a stepping stone into more work. There will be very little incentive for people to take the part-time work that improves their labour market prospects and it is to be regretted that he is not grappling with that point.

We still have a real issue with pay in the labour market and gender segregation in the workplace. The apprenticeship figures over the past few months show that women are still going down the traditional routes of care, business administration and retail, where pay is lower, and that men are more likely to go into information and communications technology, construction or engineering, where pay is typically higher. We have heard very little today about how apprenticeship strategies will be developed to widen access at a higher level and to ensure much more diverse participation in industry sectors that offer the best prospects of work and pay.

Finally, we have all been guilty of focusing too much on what we might call the supply side of the worklessness problem, as if the difficulty was that individuals needed help to be got into work. We have not considered the demand side nearly sufficiently. The problem is not a lack of willingness to work, related to what the individual seeks to achieve; the problem is that the jobs are not available. They are not available at the rates of pay that enable people to support their families, in places that people can travel to and at the hours that match up with domestic and caring responsibilities. Also, frankly, they are often not permanent, which means that people repeatedly fall in and out of low-paid and insecure work. That is the labour market failure we ought to be tackling and that I am afraid the Work programme is so far failing to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

This useful debate has exposed comprehensively the emptiness of the Opposition’s policies on welfare reform and their deeply patronising attitude to part-time work and apprenticeships. I shall come back to those points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was right to point out the scale of the ambition of the programme. It meets a wide range of needs and provides tailored, personal support to some of the hardest-to-help and hardest-to-reach people to get back into work. It supports people who have been on incapacity benefit for 10 or 15 years. They had been condemned to a life on benefit, but the programme gives them the opportunity to get back into work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was right to highlight the importance of self-employment as a route back into the labour market. We see many examples of people who are able to juggle self-employment with caring responsibilities and people who return to the labour market after ill health through self-employment. That is why we have extended eligibility for the new enterprise allowance. We have seen good examples—for instance, in Humberside—of people using the enterprise allowance to get back into work and creating businesses for themselves and their community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) will be pleased to know that 80% of the increase in employment in the past year was for UK nationals. That demonstrates progress compared with the empty slogans of the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) was right to hold Labour Members to account for their record in government, the legacy that they left this country and the appalling economic mess that this Government must clear up.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) spoke of the deep-seated structural challenges that we face. He is right: we are in a global race, and we need to respond to threats from overseas. The model that we have set out to broaden the economic base and move away from Labour’s debt-fuelled model of consumption provides sure foundations for us to win that global race.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) gave an accomplished speech. I particularly liked the bit when she said she was delighted that the baton had passed from red to blue, but perhaps she was talking about football. As the son of a former miner, I know just how much family pride there is in achievements such as hers and mine.

The hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) were dismissive of people who have part-time jobs. For so many people, taking part-time work is the right thing to do. It gets them back into employment.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I will not give way; the hon. Lady had her chance earlier.

The last labour market survey showed that 80% of people in part-time work wanted part-time work—it is right for them to do so. It is the right route back into employment for many people.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend—that is obviously a very talented group of women. She is correct that 3.5% is lower than before. It is half the total unemployment rate, which is 7.8%.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Last month in Women and Equalities questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said she did not accept that the figure of 50% unemployment among young black men was accurate. On 24 October, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), Glen Watson of the UK Statistics Authority confirmed that the figure is actually 52%. I listened carefully to the answers the Minister gave a moment ago about the definition of the unemployment rate. Is she saying that she does not accept the official figures? What will the Government do about the scandalously high level of black youth unemployment?

[Esther McVey]

We are doing a lot about this. Again, unemployment for that group is under a third—the figures the hon. Lady presents do not include people who are in education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My noble friend Lord Freud has already discussed with all the financial institutions how to construct systems that support people who may have budgeting issues. The phrase “jam-jar accounts” is an unsophisticated term for such systems, but by and large they help people apportion the money necessary for their rent, food and so on, so that they can see that money flow in and then take it out. On housing benefit, a key area of the local housing allowance will be that we will not allow people to build up arrears of debt. We will intervene early to make sure that that does not happen, which should help landlords understand that we will support them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Ministers assured us that the flexibilities introduced for lone parents on jobseeker’s allowance under Labour would continue, yet the number of lone parents who have been sanctioned has risen dramatically. In a written answer on 24 October the Minister said that the reasons for sanctions were exactly the same as those for other jobseekers. Can the Secretary of State explain exactly how those flexibilities are being properly applied and what training is being delivered to personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus?

[Mr Hoban]

I think we all believe that it is important that where lone parents can work, they should work, because that helps to boost their income and that of their family. Guidance is given to personal advisers on jobseeker’s allowance to ensure that the sanctions regime is applied appropriately to lone parents, as in the case of all jobseekers.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Exactly—as if British businesses were not struggling enough. The point is that the 500 pages of evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Friday present to the Secretary of State a whole range of issues to which we have received no answers, despite the fact that the system will go live in 150 days. The system is already over budget and late, and I am afraid that we now need some urgent answers from the Secretary of State this afternoon.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great concerns of the many agencies that he has mentioned—they are worried about how universal credit will affect the client groups that they work with—is that the funding of those advice agencies that could support individuals is being squeezed and that there will simply be no access to support, either to make applications or to sort out problems when things go wrong?

[Mr Byrne]

That is a real concern. I know from the fact that a number of advice centres in Birmingham have been forced to close that advice is simply not available for many people in some of the most deprived parts of our country. They are being asked to contend with a new benefit system that is complicated and vital to their living standards, so that is a real worry. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account in his response.

I am going to draw my remarks to a close, because I know that many hon. and right hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. All I will say to the Secretary of State is that, following the recent attacks on him by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and No. 10, he could be forgiven for wanting to retreat to the deepest, darkest bunker in Whitehall. The truth is that his Department is already one of the most secretive in Government. He is refusing to publish information about the Work programme and he has refused Labour’s freedom of information request to release the business case for universal credit. I know that he does not always see eye to eye with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but I hope that he will pay heed to his words:

“Transparency is at the heart of our agenda for government…We are unflinching in our belief that data that can be published should be published.”

Unflinching indeed.

Universal credit is a massive project—it is too big to be allowed to fail. We need to make sure that it is on track and I hope that the House will join us in sending an unequivocal message to that effect this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, I will answer the second question. That is exactly what we intend and we believe that we are on track to do just that. The right hon. Gentleman and the House should realise that this is not, as has been the case with previous IT programmes, a “waterfall” approach whereby everything explodes and is launched on one date, which I think the previous Government used to realise was probably not a good idea. This will be a progression over four years, so that, as we bring in different groups, such as jobseeker’s allowance recipients, and first address the flow, then the stock, and then look at tax credits and how they fit in, we can make sure that we get this absolutely right at every stage. We know that there are important things to consider so that people do not suffer as a result of universal credit. We want to get this right, even as we do it.

We agreed on the £2.5 billion figure. That is our position. As we look at all these things, including the disregards, we see that we can realise better ways of doing them. It is a work in progress. That is how we are able to achieve these things, just as when we looked at them originally.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has peppered us with freedom of information requests, which is exactly what an Opposition Member should do. However, it does him and the shadow Secretary of State ill to lecture us about releasing business cases. When they developed employment and support allowance, a system about as large and complicated as this one—I think that the right hon. Member for East Ham was a Minister in the Department at the time—at no stage, despite the request, did they ever release their business plan to us.

[Kate Green]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State will clarify something that he said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). He said that the change would be implemented in stages, with first the flow, then the stock and then tax credits. Surely the tax credits for the first claimants to receive universal credit will have to be brought in on the first day of universal credit.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No; it has always been part of the process that jobseeker’s allowance will be the first to move across. I am happy to discuss that further. Universal credit will run in parallel with the other systems until we shut them down and move them across. That is the way it will work. That has always been clear. I think that the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee knows that, because I have been open with her about it from the word go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman lives a bit more in the past than I do; I am the second earner in my household, as many men are in theirs. We Conservatives, as the more progressive party, understand that. He should know—[Interruption.] He has had his go. He should know that second earners in households will not lose out under the universal credit.

One thing that I particularly welcome is that universal credit is progressive; the poorest will gain most, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It says that the bottom six tenths on income distribution will gain on average, while the richest four tenths will lose out slightly in the long run. This is therefore a progressive policy, benefiting the poorest most.

[Kate Green]

I wish to take the hon. Gentleman up on this point about second earners. The logic of the system is that for the second earner in a couple it will not be worth working more than a very few hours a week. The problem with that is that it will, in the longer run, inhibit that person’s labour market prospects and have an impact on that family’s future prosperity.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Six million second earners will be better off. Importantly, 2.5 million working families will gain in the long run from the introduction of universal credit—again, that is according to IFS figures, not the Government’s figures. The Opposition are normally so keen to use the IFS figures, so it is worth quoting those figures to them and underlining how many people will be better off. That contrasts sharply with the scaremongering that we have heard from the Opposition today.

The other really important thing is that universal credit will help to lift children out of poverty. Universal credit is a transformational change which will affect some 8 million households, and we hope that 900,000 individuals, including more than 350,000 children and more than half a million working-age adults, will be lifted out of poverty as a result. The real question is: why did the previous Government not do it? Why do the Opposition not embrace it and work constructively with the Government on the fine tuning and detailing of this policy to get the best for all our electors, in whichever constituency we represent.

We are also investing an additional £300 million in child care support under universal credit, on top of £2 billion already being spent under the current system. That is worth pointing out, given a lot of the scaremongering we have heard about child care, as it shows the Government’s seriousness about helping out with child care. That will mean that more families than ever before will receive child care support, including 80,000 prevented from doing so by the current hours rule.

Universal credit is the right policy and this is the right time for it. We know that government and IT systems do not make good bedfellows—they do not make happy couples—and that there have been difficulties in the past. However, the previous Government should not judge this Government by their standards, and we should look at the implementation of employment and support allowance, as that was not an IT disaster. The Department for Work and Pensions has a good record, so we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, we should watch carefully to make sure that all goes well and all continues to be moving on time. Universal credit is important because it is very much for the many, with 2.5 million households that will gain. That is an important part of the reform.

Finally, we should trust people. There is too much of a tendency in the House to think that no one can manage, that we have to spoon-feed everyone and that no one can take responsibility. It is assumed that if they find it difficult to take responsibility, they should be spoon-fed rather than encouraged, helped and enabled to take more responsibility for their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. Of course I welcome the universal credit to the extent that it may encourage people to work at all. However, there is a danger that the fact that it has been designed to provide incentives to many people to work only in short-hours jobs will mean that more people will choose to work in short-hours jobs. Although those jobs can be a valuable stepping stone into further employment, particularly for those with caring responsibilities, we know that long periods spent trapped in mini-jobs can damage individuals’ future earning prospects. Mini-jobs are often more badly paid and more insecure than established jobs with more hours, yet those are exactly the trends that we do not want if we are to tackle in-work poverty.

It is clear that the Government are worried about that aspect of the design of universal credit, because they are planning to introduce into our benefits system—for the first time, I think—a measure of in-work conditionality, to push people working in mini-jobs into working more hours or perhaps getting a better-paid job. We currently have very little information on how in-work conditionality will work. We have not been told what additional resources will be available to Jobcentre Plus to implement it, who it will apply to or what additional training might be given to advisers to cope with the different challenge of dealing with people who are already in work. What we do know—from the DWP’s own research—is that in-work conditionality is one of the least popular aspects of what the Government are proposing when it is raised in the DWP’s research. I therefore invite the Minister to say a little more about in-work conditionality. It has been completely airbrushed out of the debate so far, but it will be extremely important to a substantial number of people who begin in low-hours, low-paid work.

I also want to reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), as well as others, about how the logic of the system will push some people to reduce their hours of work, not increase them. My right hon. Friend mentioned the interaction with the rise in the personal tax threshold which, as the charity Gingerbread has shown, means that a £1,000 increase in the personal tax allowance will give £200 a year to every basic rate taxpayer, except those on universal credit, who will gain only £70. Similarly, as we know, the new system will disincentivise second earners in couples, the majority of whom will be women. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that a second earner who is entitled to universal credit when out of work will initially lose 65% of every pound earned when they move into work, rather than 41%, as they do under the current, tax credits system. Indeed, the DWP’s own modelling shows that 900,000 potential second earners will face lower incentives to work under the new policy.

I am concerned about the payment mechanism, with payments typically going to one member of a household. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) pointed out that there are particular concerns where there is a risk of domestic violence or abuse. There is also a concern that money might not get through to children when the element of the benefit that is related to child care or child costs is intended for them. I invite the Minister to explain whether he thinks it is feasible for a woman—or man—experiencing abuse in their relationship to ask the DWP for the benefit to be split or paid all to her, rather than to him. Surely that will precipitate further abuse. I would also like to know whether the Department intends to move towards allowing the benefit to be paid partly to each member of the household and what cost assessment has been made of taking on board requests to pay the benefit in a different way. Would it not be simpler to return to the model, which has been tried and tested—as this Minister knows particularly well—of paying benefits for children to the main carer and benefits for housing to the person with the rental obligation?

Finally, let me ask some quick questions about refuges. I welcome the assurances given today. However, as people are in refuges for only two or three days, because they are dealing with an emergency, can the Minister confirm that rent will be paid directly to the landlord in those circumstances? Can he confirm that where people are in receipt of dual benefits—for their own home and the time in the refuge—they will not be hit by the benefits cap? Can he also confirm that housing costs that are currently met by the benefits system will continue to be met in full? In fact, will the Department publish an equality impact assessment of the proposals? Regrettably, we have so far seen no such thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. Needless to say, I do not share much of the scepticism of so many Opposition Members, who I fear are, in some cases, substituting extended concern about the detail, however right and proper, as a proxy for opposing the reform. Some of the support we have seen even for the principle of these reforms is half hearted at best. Given what we have heard in one or two speeches, one would have thought that this Government inherited some sort of welfare utopia in which all was working smoothly, nothing needed amending and only the uprating of benefits was necessary each year.

The situation we inherited was a complete shambles, which is apparent in a constituency such as mine. We are lucky in that many jobs have been created over the past decade in London, yet young people in my constituency have said to my face, “It isn’t worth getting a job; I’m better off sitting at home, playing on the internet and living on benefits”. If that is the case, we have to do something about it. The problem I see is an inter-generational one.

I have listened to many of the detailed speeches given by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in Public Bill Committee and elsewhere, and I know she makes many good points about the detail that have to be addressed, but this is also about committing ourselves to a principle, quite apart from the rising costs of the whole system. I have seen intelligent women in my constituency being infantilised and reduced to a position in which they do not even back themselves to manage their own finances monthly, and I have seen people with qualifications and degrees who have been out of work for a very long time.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

I shall take just this one intervention, as we are running out of time.

[Kate Green]

No one is pretending that the previous benefit system was perfect, but we should equally acknowledge that for the overwhelming majority of people in it, work did pay more than being on benefits. One instance of how the system was effective in helping to support that is the fact that lone parent employment—mostly female employment—rose from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% today.

[Jane Ellison]

That intervention misses one essential point—that there were too many in the system altogether. We cannot go on as we are.

Concerns have been expressed about monthly budgeting and other issues, and it is right to look at them. One particular point I want to make in my limited time is about what I hope will be a real engine for creativity in respect of new products to help people. We cannot say that it is only a matter of providing advice services; we need to work harder as a society to create products that work for people who are vulnerable or less financially skilled and so forth.

I do not believe the point has been made this afternoon that there is a real opportunity for a degree of rehabilitation of the banking sector. I represent an area in Battersea where the Clapham sect was active between 1790 and 1830. Its members included Wilberforce and others who were great pioneers of social reform. Not every Member may know that nearly all the Clapham sect were from banking families. I was reminded of this fact by the vicar of St Luke’s church in my constituency this week. She is piloting a meeting to discuss how the world of finance can do more to help the poor and the vulnerable in today’s society, building on the work of the Clapham sect.

I think there is a real opportunity here for the banking sector to use some genuine creativity and to step into the breach and look at ways of providing practical assistance, putting something back into society in the form of serving vulnerable people who, to date, have largely not been catered for by proper banking products or the right support from that sector. It should not be all about the voluntary sector; there is an opportunity for people involved in banks to be true to some of the heritage of the social reformers who have gone before them. I am thinking about jam jar accounts and individual banking, which I know the Department is looking at, as they could prove to be important and life changing for many vulnerable citizens.

My main point is that the Labour party has got itself on the wrong side of this debate. I believe in the welfare state, which is one of this country’s most important and civilised achievements, but if we do not make it work, not just for the people in it but for society as a whole, and if we do not restore confidence in it, we fatally undermine something that represents, as I say, such an important and civilising aspect of this country.

Before I was an MP, when I was candidate, I received an e-mail that was rather similar to the letter my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) told us he received. My e-mail was from a young woman who was a trainee nurse and lived on one of the tougher estates in my constituency. She was a single mum bringing up two children, and she wanted to work. Every morning, however, as she walked down the walkway on her estate, she was mocked, as people shouted at her through the windows of other flats. They said she was a fool to go to work and asked why she was doing it. It is absolutely appalling that we have created a situation in which someone like that, trying to do the right thing for her family, is mocked by the people around her.

Unless the Labour party puts itself on the right side of this debate and understands that we create and maintain confidence in the welfare state as an important aspect of our country by being on the side of that nurse who wanted to go to work and by ensuring that the system always works for her, it will find itself left behind in this debate. I applaud the Government for what they are trying to do. There are risks, and the Secretary of State has been open about them today—of course there are risks in major reform—but it is about meeting those risks head on and making the reform work, not about naysaying it before it has even started.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. We already have an issue that should be dealt with beyond that, with people who declare themselves as self-employed on arrival here—some coming in as sellers on the street, and so on. There is a way in which they can claim benefits. We do not want to open that up to everybody; we would rather deal with that but not lose the habitual residence test, which is my plan.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State none the less acknowledge that, in fact, migrant workers are more likely to be in work and disproportionately less likely to be claiming benefits than non-migrants? Does he not think it important that we conduct the debate with the facts accurately and reliably portrayed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree that we want to ensure that the door is open to those who want to come and work here and benefit the UK. That is part of the agreements in the European Union. However, we have concerns, and we are not alone: 17 countries and others are beginning to ask why this is necessary. Freedom of movement exists; what the habitual residence test does is protect our understanding of that, not damage it. Indeed, we have no intention of damaging it, but we certainly want to protect British taxpayers from any kind of change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for those comments; I wish that everybody else on his side of the House approached this issue with the same attitude. Work experience has resulted in about half those going on to it getting off the benefits roll. They want to do it—this is really important—and what they are getting from it is experience they cannot otherwise get. Employers say to people time and again, “We can’t employ you because you don’t have experience,” yet they could not get that experience. Surely this has got to be a good thing for them and a good thing for all of us.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, support good quality work experience that genuinely enhances employability, but as the Secretary of State seeks to roll out this initiative, what steps are his Department taking to ensure that high quality is maintained and that such work experience does not become a way for employers to churn cheap labour at the bottom?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is absolutely focusing on this issue with Jobcentre Plus. If we hear of any programmes that are not in that category, we will not allow young people to go on them. However, the key thing to bear in mind here is that this gives young people a real chance to get something they can sell to an employer. We should all back that, and I wish that more people were like the hon. Members who have just spoken.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that they will be pleased that they have a Government who have protected the specialist disability employment budget—£320 million—and we want to make sure that it is working better for more people. We estimate that we could support an extra 8,000 people into employment if we were to use the money in a more compelling way. None of this reform was the sort of reform that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was looking at.

Let us also consider the work capability assessment, as Labour Members raised it. They will know that we inherited the programme from the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a harder, harsher and tougher process than the one we have now put in place. Since taking office, this Government have brought in Professor Harrington to renew these arrangements. Furthermore, we have listened to and implemented all the recommendations made in his independent review. The changes softened the system—

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make a little more progress, as I know that we want to cover a number of issues in this debate.

These changes have softened the system and made it fairer for people, recognising that many people with a health condition want to work and can do so with the right support. We have asked Professor Harrington to continue to review this process for us and make recommendations, because for too long under the last Government people were written off on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about such a difficult circumstance. I think he would only expect the Department to make sure that staff were handling such cases correctly. Of course every case like that is an absolute tragedy, and we want to make sure that the system works really well for the individuals concerned. I am sure that he will want to applaud the work that the Government are doing to try to make the system better. I repeat that the system we inherited was harsh and difficult, and we have softened that further.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, we need to make some progress in this debate or many hon. Members will not be able to contribute to it.

We are also reforming the disability living allowance, on which, again, the Opposition have failed to give any answers. Labour Members say they want reform, but the reality is that they have voted against reform every step of the way. As far back as 2005, the Labour Government found out that £600 million of DLA was being paid out in overpayments, yet they failed to do anything about it. In 2007, they found out that the independent living fund needed serious reform, but again they did nothing about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

We certainly need to ensure that lessons are learned from some of the problems we inherited on the work capability assessment. Many have already been learned and there is a clear read-across in the work we are doing. Although the PIP assessment is very different from the work capability assessment, there are many lessons to be learned.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is proposing to take a substantial proportion of the current DLA budget out of the new PIP budget—the figure we have heard is 20%—and to target the spending on people with a higher level of need. Does she not accept that reducing access to financial support for those with lower levels of need who are enabled as a result to remain in paid employment is a false economy and that prevention is probably better than cure in this case?

[Maria Miller]

I do not think that it can be a false economy to make a change that will see the end of £600 million going out in overpayments. The change is long overdue. We need a benefit that supports disabled people in a flexible, non-means tested way that is not related to their work status, with a firmer gateway to ensure that we get the money to the people who need it. That will mean that we are not left in the situation we are in now, where 70% of people have a benefit for life and there is no inbuilt way of reassessing that. We need to see an end to that inaccurate use of much-needed money.

Women’s Aid

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate on women’s aid and safety and access to benefits, and to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am also pleased to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has a great interest in the subject that we are debating, and of course my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire).

The theme of the debate is, unmistakably, women’s aid and safety and access to benefits, but it is also predicated on an enlightened understanding of the scourge of domestic abuse, which is the root cause of the problem. I believe that there is a moral duty not to just pay lip service to an endemic problem visited on far too many women. Domestic abuse was succinctly articulated by the psychologist and author Susan Forward, PhD, who described it as

“any behaviour that is intended to control and subjugate another human being through the use of fear, humiliation, and verbal or physical assaults…it is the systematic persecution of one partner by another”.

Having assimilated and carefully studied the erudite view expressed by Dr Forward, I wish to proceed. The consequences of domestic abuse are simply horrific and lead women into a very dark place. They live a life in the most sinister, corrosive and destructive environment, which is as near to hell as it is possible to get on earth. Living under a reign of constant fear and terror of mental and physical torture damages the self-esteem of the victims, but what incalculable damage does it inflict on innocent children? We can ponder that. They, too, are often scarred for the rest of their lives.

One of the foremost international diplomats, renowned for resolving conflict around the world, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once said that domestic abuse

“denies women their most basic human rights, such as the right to health, and undermines the social and economic development of communities and whole countries…Domestic Abuse is widespread and cuts across class, age, religion and ethnic group…it has long been established that there can be no justification for any form of Domestic Abuse.”

He concluded:

“Domestic Abuse is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth.”

Monklands Women’s Aid provides a first-class service to women and children in my constituency. Before institutions such as Women’s Aid existed, many women were forced to suffer in a chilling silence for the sake of their children. When we think back to previous generations, we can only wonder with incredulity at how many women lived in hell. We will never know how many were driven to such a level of despair that they took their own lives.

Clearly, most women did not have a way out of their oppressive environment. I am sure we all agree, irrespective of our political differences, that we do not want a return to those days. We have to understand that many of the partners have not only a physical hold over those women, but a mental hold, an iron grip, which is extremely difficult for many women to break free from. Women’s Aid is now inculcated in our society. Thankfully, women of this generation are not alone and they realise that they have a place of refuge.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate; I know that that sentiment will be echoed across the Chamber. Like him, I pay tribute to my local Women’s Aid and I also pay tribute to Trafford rape crisis centre. There are some excellent organisations, as he says. Does he agree that in addition to the physical and mental abuse that he describes, there is financial abuse? As has been shown, when women are under financial pressure, it is more difficult for them to flee an abusive relationship, so at times of rising female unemployment and reduced access to financial benefits, more women might be trapped in the home in exactly the circumstances that he describes.

[Mr Clarke]

I agree and I hope to deal with some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises. That was an excellent intervention.

As an organisation, Women’s Aid has supported women from all social and financial backgrounds and continues to do so. One in four women will experience domestic abuse at some point in their life. Two women a week are murdered by a partner or ex-partner. Women living with domestic abuse are five times more likely to suffer from depression. In 90% of domestic abuse incidents where children are present in the home, they will be in the same or the next room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is very powerfully evoking the experiences of women and their children who have suffered abuse. Does he agree that one of the things that those women particularly value when they go to a Women’s Aid refuge is that it is a service designed for, run by and informed by an ethos that is led by women’s experiences? If so, does he share my concern that increasingly services are being contracted out to organisations other than Women’s Aid—non-specialist organisations that do not have that necessary empathy with the women, however well-meaning they may be, and, indeed, can sometimes make quite crass decisions? For example, we heard just the other day of a provider that had advertised for new staff to work in its service and had actually put the address of the local refuge in a newspaper.

[Mr Clarke]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Certainly, the sheer dedication of the women working at the centres, which I have seen at Monklands Women’s Aid and elsewhere, is awesome, and I do not think that it can be replaced by commercial considerations. I therefore welcome what she has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this debate on an incredibly important part of so many women’s lives. The right hon. Gentleman has already identified statistics that show us how important the subject is. He mentioned that one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime and that two women are murdered each week. That has been consistent over the past decade and not enough has been done about it. It is important, if I may say so, that a man—a gentleman—has raised this issue today. The more that men speak about the issue, the more that it is seen as important.

The physical, mental and financial abuse suffered has already been mentioned. I stress the importance of those three aspects. There is still a lack of understanding that domestic abuse can incorporate all three aspects. Physical abuse is easy to see, but mental abuse is not. People are less likely to understand it and therefore women are less willing to come forward and report it. The financial side that was mentioned earlier is about control. It often starts with financial control, which leads to other things.

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. Does she agree, therefore, that we ought to be alarmed that one of the features of the universal credit is that it will be paid to one member of a couple? That may increasingly mean that women in abusive relationships will not have independent income, which will increase the possibility of financial abuse.

[Mary Macleod]

I think universal credit will help women in domestic abuse situations, and I am sure the Minister will address that issue in her reply. It is important to give women who are in such situations the support that they need and also emergency funds at the time they need them.

[Mary Macleod]

I agree. That will make a difference to women in such situations.

In my constituency, domestic abuse and violence is at the top of the police agenda in west London. The police take it very seriously. The matter was brought home to me when I was out campaigning on the streets one day, as many of us do as Members of Parliament, and a 16-year-old boy asked me what I was doing. I explained and asked him, “What is the most important issue around here?” He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Domestic violence.” I was really moved by that. Perhaps some of the work that has been done on prevention and in schools is beginning to make an impact now and young people are beginning to understand that it is an important issue. I have visited refuges in my constituency. They are a haven for women who need them at their lowest point in life and at their time of need.

I raised the issue of housing earlier, because it is one of the important factors for allowing a woman to rebuild her life following an abusive situation. Hestia, an organisation in London, put together a report that I launched on international women’s day last week. The report made some good recommendations on housing, such as having someone at the council who is trained in and understands domestic abuse issues, so that they can make the right decisions. An important aspect is the link to temporary housing, which came home to me when a woman visited my weekly surgery one day. She has a seven-year-old child and for 18 months has been in one of the refuges in my constituency. She is currently on band C on the housing register, which in London probably means a wait of six or seven years to get proper housing.

I started a campaign to persuade Hounslow council—my council—to try to move victims of domestic abuse up the priority list. Avoiding temporary housing or bed and breakfast accommodation would really make a massive difference to the lives of women and their children, because temporary housing, unlike permanent housing, means more instability.

[Kate Green]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. She will know that it is often necessary for women to move a long way from the family home and potentially to another local authority. Does she agree that local authorities receiving women who are fleeing abuse from a different part of the country should treat them with the same priority on the housing list? That is often not the case at the moment. I have a case in my constituency. A constituent wanted to be moved to the other side of Manchester—to a different local authority—but it simply was not willing to give her the same priority.

[Mary Macleod]

I completely agree; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. Women usually have to go far away from where they initially lived to ensure their safety, so they need councils to recognise that and give them priority. Even if councils initially gave priority to women with children, it would be a start. Then I would like to widen it to all women—all people—who are in refuges. It would make a tremendous difference and enable them to rebuild their lives. They have been through horrific circumstances and we have a duty of care and humanity to them. We should be able to say, “We will help you to create a fresh new start that is positive and could make a real difference to you and your children.”

I am pleased to see some of the work that has been done on rape crisis centres. We have opened additional centres in London. That will help to make a difference. I want to ask the Minister about work on preventive measures and early intervention, Some great work has been done on early intervention, including teaching young people about the importance of healthy relationships and respecting the right to say no. Preventive work is also being done with women at high risk. We have a sort of payment by results approach. Is there more that we can do to support the organisations that are doing great preventive work in that area and in schools?

I congratulate the Government on the call to end violence against women. The paper came out last year. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill on the positiveness of this debate. On such issues it makes me feel that we can work together to find solutions that will make a real difference. We can work across the House to find a solution that will make a long-term difference to many women who, unfortunately, go through horrific circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

I totally agree. That echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown)—he is no longer in his place—who said that, given that uncertainty, women go back go the household where they were abused. If they have never engaged with the benefits system—and even if they have—there is an element of uncertainty about the time frames. It may not be entirely clear what will happen to their child benefit. Who gets the child benefit at the moment? Technically, it goes to women, but that might not be the case in some abusive relationships. As well as having to deal with violence and abuse, women face that financial uncertainty. We should not underestimate how difficult it is for women who are trying to get out of a violent situation not only to have to worry about the impact of the violence on them and their children, but to face uncertainty because they might be stepping off the edge of a cliff and they do not know what will happen. I totally endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

Will the Minister tell us how organisations that offer hostel and supported accommodation will be treated in the assessment of housing support assistance in the new system? Currently, supported accommodation providers are allowed to breach the local housing allowance cap, because an element in the costs allows them to charge for additional support services, such as those provided by Women’s Aid or similar organisations, although Women’s Aid is obviously the principal provider.

We are seeing a real-terms cut in supported housing costs across the country, and we cannot run away from that. Local organisations that offer accommodation will therefore face a cut in any circumstances. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that women’s aid organisations are receiving a greater funding cut than local authorities—there is a differential of 4% or 5%. There is therefore uncertainty, and if organisations that offer supported accommodation cannot make up the additional costs, there will be a real threat—this is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was alluding to—to the financial viability and, indeed, the very existence of their hostels.

The Minister understands the commitment of those in organisations such as Women’s Aid who are able to give the support that is needed at a very difficult time; but although that voluntary activity is important, it is not the only element of the support that is given. There are services that have a cost attached to them, and we cannot ignore that.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that might have an impact on providers of specialist services, such as those for minority ethnic women, or very young women? Such organisations cannot take advantage of economies of scale, by providing for large numbers, as some housing associations can; but if we lose that specialist provision, some very vulnerable young women will be reluctant to go anywhere for support.

[Mrs McGuire]

What my hon. Friend says echoes what I said at the beginning of my speech about how the benefits system relates to specialised individual needs. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on that matter.

I suppose that my direct question to the Minister is whether those in receipt of local housing allowance who go into women’s hostels will receive just the basic housing allowance; or will the hostels be able to charge an additional amount, to be covered by the local housing allowance? My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill made that point starkly when he talked about the pressure on Monklands Women’s Aid. There may be a misunderstanding, and if so I am sure that we would love to receive clarification.

The Minister appreciates that some women and, as I have said, some men are forced to leave their homes as a result of domestic violence and need not just a roof over their head but significant support. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth highlighted that.Like other hon. Members, I hope that the Minister will consider how to finesse the new system of local housing allowance to take account of those additional services. Otherwise, I fear for the long-term viability of women’s aid organisations that provide hostel accommodation.

I am echoing comments that other hon. Members have made when I say that some women who have left home may have little or no experience of budgeting, or may be in such a state that budgeting is the last thing on their minds. The direct payment of rent in those circumstances would benefit some people. I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye that, in principle, giving people the independence to pay their own rent is good practice. Indeed, we introduced that when in government, because it lessened some of the stigma effects—the “No DHSS here” signs and other such things—but we must be realistic and say that in some specific circumstances people would benefit from having their rent paid directly. I hope that the Minister will consider a range of exemptions, to allow those who want it and who feel that they need it at the time in question to access direct payment. I may be wrong, but I understand that the Minister, or the Department, is currently considering such exemptions. Perhaps she will be able to give us interesting news.

The Minister will be aware that on Monday a Delegated Legislation Committee debated the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. The Government’s proposal to ease some of the JSA conditionality on those coping with domestic violence was unanimously accepted. We certainly welcome that decision, which implemented elements of the Welfare Reform Act 2009. Although there have been, as I said earlier, some robust Divisions on welfare reform provisions, the regulations in question were welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

However, I want to ask for the Minister’s view on an issue on which the views were not unanimous: how welfare reform will affect the capacity of women’s aid organisations to seek housing for women. There are serious concerns about the effect of the change to the shared-room rate of local housing allowance under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on victims of domestic abuse and the possibility that it will make it difficult for some women to move easily from hostels to independent accommodation. The fact that the age limit is being extended from 25 to 35 makes it difficult, particularly for women who have been used to an element of independence. Is the age of 33, given all the other things happening in the life of such a person, really the time—I should not say “you”, Dr McCrea, but in Scotland “you” is the vernacular for “one”—when you should think about going into shared accommodation, perhaps with strangers? There is concern about that; I have certainly picked it up from women’s aid organisations.

[Kate Green]

I agree that that is a concern, particularly for women who have had traumatic experiences of violence. They will be reluctant to move into shared accommodation with people—potentially men—they do not know. Is not the likely result therefore that some of them remain in the refuge, reluctant to leave, so that there will be a sort of bed-blocking situation? Then other women who need to flee to the refuge will not be able to do so.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is the general feedback that many hon. Members are getting from women’s aid organisations. The age of 35, for women in that situation, is perhaps inappropriate.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is a fair point, and it was the argument prosecuted by the Minister on Monday. However, it is one thing to offer women the choice to stay in accommodation with other people; for many women that would not be their choice. Although it is anecdotally-based, the view that that requirement might be an impediment to moving women into their own accommodation has a strong resonance in women’s aid organisations.

The regulations passed on Monday proved that the general can be finessed to the specific, and I hope that the Minister will discuss with her departmental colleagues whether some easement of the relevant aspect is possible, so that women, many of whom have been their own person for a long time, will not be forced into a particular choice, but offered a range of choices. Are we really going to say to those women that the only option for them at 33 or 34 is to share a flat with someone else—and not necessarily, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)pointed out—people they know?

Another element on which I wish to question the Minister is the way that the new universal credit regulations will work for those who have had to leave home because of domestic abuse. Universal credit is a household benefit, and a test of its responsiveness to individual circumstances will be how flexibly it enables one allocation to a household to be deconstructed when one partner leaves the household, often in traumatic circumstances. That is a question not just of the speed of response, but of how that will give the confidence that was spoken of earlier. I appreciate that the decision makers dealing with these issues might not deal with them daily, but we need some confidence that they will be able to respond quickly to those who need to establish a second claim for universal credit under the new regulations.

[Kate Green]

I want to ask about women who flee violence and do not go to a refuge, or who leave a refuge to set up their own home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that another concern about the welfare reforms is the uncertainty about the localising of the social fund? Many women fleeing domestic violence depend entirely on the social fund to set up their new homes. Does she agree that it would be useful if the Minister indicated what guidance will be issued to local authorities under the Welfare Reform Act 2012?

[Mrs McGuire]

That is a good point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has slotted it in.

There is a question about how the social fund will be delivered to the devolved Administrations. Will it go directly to them or to local authorities? Will the devolved Administrations be the intermediaries? The reason why I highlight that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is that he has had bitter experience with an allocation of funding at a UK level for respite care for disabled children. As a proportion under the Barnett formula, it went to the Scottish Government, but then—I shall be generous—we could not quickly identify where the money went. It appeared to be wrapped up in other funding packages; it certainly did not appear to be delivered as my right hon. Friend’s Committee intended.

I will wind up with one or two general points. We have focused to a certain extent on the benefits side, but there are wider issues. Although I appreciate that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for those wider issues, I hope that she will take them on board in her discussions with her colleagues. It is fair to say that women’s support services feel that they are facing a precarious future out there, owing to the uncertainty of funding. It is widely recognised that domestic abuse accounts for between 16% and 25% of violent crime in this country. It is not disappearing. It is there, and our police forces are aware of it.

Cuts are being made to policing. We can debate how many and how much. Street lighting is under pressure, as are women’s support services, including refuges. All those factors affect the wider issue of women’s safety in this country. I hope that the Minister will allay some of our fears and give my right hon. Friend and me confidence that she understands the issues and is prepared to see how the Government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, can respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I appreciate the exemptions that have been made. However, housing organisations such as Crisis and Shelter have pointed out that if an exemption for people leaving homeless hostels is enshrined in legislation, there seems to be no objection to having the same exemption for women leaving refuges.

[Maria Miller]

Our approach is to empower local authorities to have the sort of discretion that can make all the difference in such cases. Each individual case is different, which is why the discretionary housing payments are important and why we are putting so much more taxpayers’ money into that—to give local authorities the flexibility that can make all the difference.

The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said that he felt that there may have been some indication of a reduction in the amount available to pay for refuges. I make this clear to reassure him: the consultation on refuges that we have been through is not intended to be a cost-cutting exercise. We want to make the rules fairer and ensure that help is better targeted on those who need it. It is about ensuring that the money that we have reaches those who need it most. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman about housing benefit. His debate is timely because we are moving forward at the moment to talk to stakeholders on that issue before we formulate regulations and before they are looked at through the positive procedures of the House.

Hon. Members also talked about universal credit and how that will affect people who are at risk of or have experienced domestic violence. I believe that the system will hold a great deal of good for individuals who find themselves in such a situation. One of the important contributions—as a constituency MP, I can empathise with this—stressed that sometimes the issue is about the timeliness, or the lack of it, of support in place for women who find themselves in a refuge. A delay in receiving financial support at that point can be extremely distressing. The current complexities of the benefits system can do little to help speed that process up. That is why I feel strongly that universal credit will greatly benefit some of the most vulnerable groups in our communities.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion on the subject, and I thank her for her intervention. She is pushing me a little further than I am able to go at the moment, but I hear loud and clear what she is saying about the importance of ensuring that there is some certainty there. I would like to make it clear to her and other hon. Members that the work that we are doing is not intended to unsettle or jeopardise the financial futures of the refuges. That is not something we intend to do. We do not want to do anything to damage the sector.

Universal credit will be a simpler way of people applying for benefits, and will significantly benefit this group of women particularly. We will introduce a system of payments on account, so that some individuals can get payments made, even if not all the details of their claim can be sorted out straight away. Again, simplification and a fleetness of foot will assist people in these very difficult situations.

Throughout the development of the reform—universal credit—we have worked very hard to ensure that safeguards are put in place to protect vulnerable people, including victims of domestic abuse. That includes those still residing within the household and those who have been forced into a refuge. The right hon. Member for Stirling, who speaks for the Opposition, highlighted the single monthly payment made to households. We have put that in place because we feel that it is important and integral that it is the family’s responsibility to decide how a payment is made and to manage their own finances.

However, as the right hon. Lady said, of course, there will be exceptional cases. It is important that any system can deal with and support those exceptional cases, where a single payment into one account may compromise the safety of household members. We have therefore ensured in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 that there is a power to split payments between members of a couple in the case of a joint claim. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also raised that.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that there is the option for universal credit to be split between members of the household. However, does she not agree that it will be difficult for a woman to seek that in a situation where there is financial abuse, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod)? I realise that it is well beyond the opportunity to get the legislation changed, but will the Minister at least assure me that the Government will keep a careful eye on the impact on those women of a single payment to one member of the household in relation to the financial abuse that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth rightly raised?

[Maria Miller]

I absolutely assure the hon. Lady that, in all aspects of the reform that we are undertaking—whether it is this or another aspect of the Welfare Reform Act—we will keep a very close eye on how things are working in practice. She is absolutely right: we have to do that to ensure that those who are particularly vulnerable and in difficult situations are getting the support that they need.

Under universal credit, there will continue to be a 13-week exemption to conditionality where there is evidence of threatened or actual domestic violence. In addition, the application of conditionality overall will be more responsive to the needs and circumstances of individuals. Importantly, advisers will be able to have crucial discretion to vary or temporarily lift requirements where a claimant is subject to a change in circumstances such that they cannot reasonably be expected to take even limited steps into work. That discretion can help individualise the support that we give people in those difficult circumstances.

The situations faced by victims of domestic violence are very varied and therefore, beyond a three-month exemption, we believe that it is right to take a case-by-case approach and give advisers such discretion. As part of the move towards self-sufficiency, in the cases we have talked about, universal credit will be paid directly to tenants rather than to landlords. There are elements around direct payments that are still being considered, and the role of hostels and refuges are part of that. However, let me assure hon. Members that we will do that in a way that protects the income of social landlords. The Government have absolutely no intention of doing anything that will damage the sector. I hope that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill will find that commitment a reassurance at this time.

The debate is extremely timely. My colleagues in the Department and I will consider very carefully all the comments made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. We need to examine carefully the circumstances in which alternative arrangements for payment of universal credit will need to be made. We will start a process of working with key stakeholders over the next few months on what should be included in regulations, with a view to publishing a draft set of regulations in due course. I assure hon. Members that I am committed to ensuring that the right safeguards are in place, particularly in the case of victims of domestic violence. Again, I underline my thanks to hon. Members for sharing their thoughts on this matter. I assure them that they will help inform our discussions as we move forward.

Welfare Reform Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

It becomes clearer and clearer that the flaws in this one-cap-fits-all policy loom large indeed.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are getting slightly misleading information about the percentage of people who are long-term unemployed? About 40% of them are on jobseeker’s allowance and have been for less than a year; a further 22% have been on employment and support allowance for less than two years; the remainder are on income support and are not required to look for work. These are not long-term unemployed people idling about; they are people who are either not required to look for work or who have not been on benefit for a particularly long time.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps if Conservative Members had not tried to play politics and had thought the policy through, we might be in a better place this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

As the right hon. Gentleman will have just heard, I came into this House from outside politics, with a background in the public sector, the charity sector and business, where making concessions and being flexible in achieving goals was generally considered to be a merit. Perhaps if he had shown more flexibility in his approach to the handling of taxpayers’ funds, we would not be in quite the situation that we are today. I am sorry, because I enjoy his company, but I came to the conclusion that his approach today does not remotely add up to a policy. It is simply the continuation of a welfare culture by his party that amounts to gross irresponsibility, married to a something for nothing culture.

In summary, the Bill achieves the following goals. It protects the weak, the disadvantaged and the disabled. There are transitional arrangements in place to help families who are unintentional victims of the Bill in places with high housing costs such as London. It does ensure that workers who are paying the tax that goes to support an enormous benefits bill can see that the Government are taking steps to cap the amounts that are paid out. It is the right thing for Gloucester and for this country, and the amendment is a clumsy, last-minute fudge rather than any solution. I have no hesitation in rejecting it and supporting the Government’s proposal.

[Kate Green]

I need only a couple of minutes to ask three questions, particularly in relation to the Lords amendment on leaving child benefit out of the cap.

As has been pointed out many times, families earning £35,000 or £40,000 and families on benefits both receive child benefit—it is a universal benefit. First, then, how can it be right to have the same cap for a single, childless adult as for a family with children? Secondly, why are this Government, of all Governments, importing a new couples penalty into the benefits system? It might make more sense for a couple, each of whom might separately be below the cap, to separate than to stay together and incur it. I have never understood why this Secretary of State, of all Secretaries of State, wants to introduce such a policy.

Thirdly, how will the cap be uprated—if, indeed, it is to be uprated? What will happen if a family is forced to move to cheaper accommodation because its costs exceed the cap, and then rents rise in the new area and it is forced to move again and again and again? Until we know how the cap is to be uprated, children’s well-being and family stability will be put at risk, but I have yet to hear Ministers address that issue.

[Chris Grayling]

In the past hour and 45 minutes, we have listened to a debate that sums up the difference between the Labour party and the parties in government. With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the remarks that we have heard.

It is my view—and, I believe, the view of the public listening to this debate—that we have to change the nature of our welfare state. We have to move away from the world that existed under the previous Government, where children grew up, generation after generation, in houses where no one worked, and where entire communities had people with no experience of work in their family and who knew nothing about how to improve their lot in life. In the Bill, we have introduced a package of measures that will do nothing short of transforming our welfare state.

The great tragedy of this afternoon’s debate is that Labour just does not get it. We have seen an extraordinary attempt by Labour to get itself off a highly visible public hook over a policy that commands overwhelming public support in every constituency in the country. If we walked out on to the streets this afternoon and asked the public what they thought about a benefit cap, we would discover that virtually everyone was 100% behind this policy. Yet what we have heard from the Opposition over the weeks has been an exercise in dancing around the issue. There have been moments when they have said that they favour the benefits cap, but there have been moments when they have said that they oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

Hon. Members will forgive me if I make some progress, as I may answer some of their questions before they ask them.

On the cost of the up-front payment, it is important that we recognise that the system costs the taxpayer almost half a billion pounds a year. We want to ensure that we are using the system to support families properly to take responsibility, but we also need to ensure that we make the prudent savings that taxpayers would expect us to make in these difficult economic times. The cost of charging up front will not disproportionately add cost to the whole system—far from it. We are incentivising people to come to their own arrangements. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), more than half the people currently inside the system would like to make their own arrangements. I know that by putting in place an up-front charge we will get some of those people to consider the actions they take.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make some progress. I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and we have another significant issue to discuss after this one.

We want to support parents in taking responsibility for their child’s financial support post-separation, so that they do not see the costly and heavy-handed CSA as their only option. As I have said, half the parents using the Child Support Agency tell us they would like to make their own arrangements, with the right support, which clearly demonstrates that the CSA has come to be seen as the default option.

We have already announced that we are putting in place the support that parents need to be able to come to their own agreements, with the collaborative arrangements that are best for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

I am also reluctant to take issue with the Lords unnecessarily. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I found that from time to time the Lords would propose amendments to legislation that I had introduced. At first I was shocked that anyone could think that my legislation could be improved in any way, but when I listened to what was said by the Lords in general and the bishops in particular, I usually found that it contained an element of truth. There was something worth listening to, even if I could not take on board everything that they proposed. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to them, has modified the charging structure, and has taken their points on board. However, she is probably right not to adopt the whole principle of what the other place suggests.

I am not entirely persuaded of the Lords’ case, because I think that it is right in principle to charge for a costly service, and it is right that the people who principally benefit from it should pay an element of it in the form of a charge, rather than our leaving the entire cost to the other party or the taxpayer. It is right in principle, too, that wherever possible we encourage voluntary agreements, rather than reliance on state-funded bureaucracy, because voluntary agreements, where possible, are better, and because that reduces the load on an over-extended bureaucracy that has never been able to cope with the load that it has; it is better that it focuses on the most obdurate cases.

It is right in principle to charge both parents, as it is not possible, even though their lordships’ amendment implies that it is, to distinguish who is the goody and who the baddy.

[Kate Green]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will let the hon. Lady make her own points in due course. We may reach our own judgments on who is right and who is wrong, but we cannot make the agency decide that. Both parents will benefit from an arrangement reached by the CSA, and it is right that it should make that arrangement.

I noticed that there were an awful lot of lawyers on the voting lists in the House of Lords. Lawyers do not say, “We won’t charge you if you’re right; we’ll only charge you if you’re wrong. We won’t charge you if you’re the aggrieved party; we’ll only charge the other party.” They should accept that similar rules apply to charging by the CSA.

Finally, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, now that child support is an addition to a family’s income, rather than it simply being about getting back the taxpayers’ money—I am not sure that it was right to make that move—it is sensible that there should be a charge to the beneficiaries. On balance, I think that my hon. Friend the Minister was right to make the modest concession that she did to her lordships, but to stick to the principle; I am glad that she has done so.

[Kate Green]

I want to make a point on child support, and a point on the Child Poverty Act 2010 and the change that the Government are planning to make to it.

I point out that there is an inequality of bargaining power, particularly in a high-conflict situation, which means that parents with care—usually women—do not have a choice on whether to arrive at a consensual agreement. In practice, women in particular will settle for little or nothing for the sake of a quiet life because they cannot afford the fee. I particularly take exception to the idea that a parent with care who has done everything possible to reach a voluntary agreement, but who meets with a resistant, recalcitrant non-resident parent, will have to pay a fee when it is absolutely no fault of hers that she and, more to the point, her children do not get the financial support that they should.

The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) says that it is right that those who benefit from or seek to access the service should pay a fee, but it is children who are intended to benefit from a statutory system of child support. Is it right that money intended for children should be hypothecated in that way?

The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister seem to believe that it is impossible for the child support system to take a view on which parent is at fault, but in clause 138 of the Bill, that view is taken by the system, because access to the collection service is being limited to cases in which the commission has decided that maintenance will not otherwise be payable. If it is possible for the commission to make that assessment and to determine that there is no prospect of the non-resident parent making payment, how can no view be taken on whether efforts have been made to receive a voluntary payment or not?

The majority of lone parents are women and women are already typically worse off after separation or divorce whereas men are better off. The fact that those parents will now be hit with a further fee as there will be both an up-front fee and a fee for collection when that collection fails—although I welcome the fact that the fee has been cut to £20, I would like to see it at zero—means that those families on low incomes will be left with very little income.

[Maria Miller]

How does the hon. Lady suggest that the agency should decide which parent stood in the way of an agreement? Would she take the same view as was taken in the debate in the other place, which is that it would always be the non-resident parent’s fault that an agreement was not in place?

[Kate Green]

The point is that a system is being established whereby the parent with care must access the system. There will be a discussion at that point about the process by which that approach to the agency is made. There is no difficulty at all at that point in taking a decision about the responsibility and behaviour of the parent making that application. I cannot understand why the Government think that it is perfectly okay for other officials in the DWP to make decisions on whether people are making appropriate efforts to make themselves available for employment, but not for a decision to be taken on whether a parent has properly engaged in a process of seeking to reach agreement with a non-resident parent.

I also want to speak briefly about the Government’s proposal to amend the obligation on the child poverty target under the Child Poverty Act. The current obligation is for the Government to report on the progress that must be made to achieve child poverty targets—targets to which every party in this House has signed up. There will now be a far weaker requirement simply to report on proposed measures. In other words, there will be an obligation on the Government to report on what they might or might not do, but absolutely no obligation to report on whether it works or on what difference it makes. That undermines what lies at the heart of the Act, which was a genuine wish across the House in the previous Parliament to see real progress in bringing down child poverty and for every politician in this House to be accountable for that outcome.

I very much regret such a weakening of the Child Poverty Act. In future, the Government could legally produce a child poverty strategy that makes no reference to the number of children in poverty—an extremely important measure in driving progress—and has no clear goals for how the proposed actions will reduce that number. When the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the cumulative impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on other measures will be to drive up child poverty between now and 2015 and onwards to 2020, one has to wonder whether the proposal is not a rather cynical and calculating step on the part of the Government to wriggle out of an obligation that they know they are not on track to meet.

[Jenny Willott]

I want to speak quickly on under-occupancy and the Child Support Agency.

The main concern on the Liberal Democrat Benches about under-occupancy and the housing benefit proposals—as hon. Members have heard from a couple of my colleagues and from Members on both sides of the House—is about the impact on rural areas and, in particular, the Scottish islands. There is also a concern about urban areas where an active allocation policy has meant that families have been given larger houses in areas that are less popular. I appreciate that it is difficult to lay out in legislation the need to ensure that tenants are offered appropriate alternative accommodation, but it is important that we ensure that when alternative offers are made they should take into account issues such as family and support networks, which are particularly important in helping people to get back into work. Offers should also take into account the distance people will have to travel, how that will relate to the communities, the lack of public transport in rural areas and so on, as well as where people are working and how easy it is for them to commute if they are required to move.

I understand that the Government will be doing that through discretionary housing payments, but I would be grateful if the Minister would ensure that guidance making those elements very clear is provided for local authorities. I know that discretionary housing payments are ring-fenced, and that is extremely important, but it is also important that general rules taking into account a sensible approach of looking at community links and the availability of alternative accommodation, or lack thereof, are applied across the country.