Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will absolutely do that because, as my hon. Friend knows, we are all about trying to help people out of poverty by getting them back into work. The benefits cap is one part of a portfolio of policies—including universal credit, the Work programme and the migration of people off incapacity benefit—that will deliver the kind of change to our welfare state that we so desperately need and was so desperately lacking in 13 years under Labour.

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

The Minister will be aware that it is expected that the number of claimants on employment and support allowance who are routed to the Work programme will be about 150,000 lower than was expected when the contracts were let. What assessment has he made of the impact on their viability?

[Chris Grayling]

Overall, as the hon. Lady will have seen from the figures that we published before Christmas about expected numbers in the Work programme, we are likely to see more people in the harder-to-help groups go into the programme than was previously expected. However, she will also have seen from the previous sets of statistics on ESA that we have a larger than expected support group, which is partly because of policy changes that we have made in areas such as cancer, addiction and mental health in which we are trying to provide better long-term protection for people who are genuinely vulnerable.

Unemployment

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will learn, if he listens to my speech, that we are already doing things. We have delivered a package of support that will make a significant difference to the lives of the unemployed.

We keep hearing about a mythical two-year gap in provision. I remind the Opposition that the programmes that we inherited from them finished only three months ago. Today’s unemployment figures cover part of the period when the previous Government’s programmes were continuing.

Let me take up the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) made about this morning’s unemployment figures. He questioned why I had said this morning that the labour market had showed some signs of stabilisation. Let me explain why. It is because over the past month, employment has risen by 38,000 and unemployment has risen by 16,000, a number that is considerably exceeded by the change in activity levels. The youth unemployment figure, excluding full-time students, has remained static, and the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has risen by 3,000, whereas the total number of people who have moved off incapacity benefit and income support as a result of our welfare reforms is 10,000. Those are one month’s figures and certainly do not reflect a long-term change, but they are at least a sign of some stabilisation in the labour market. I think he would and should welcome that.

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

I want to return to the Minister’s point about the previous programmes having only just come to a conclusion. He surely accepts that they were running down. If someone started on a future jobs fund programme at the very end of its life, that individual would inevitably be in work for a further six months. However, that does not mean that there was not a substantial gap between the announcement of the closure of some programmes and the Government finally getting around to opening up a new programme, the youth contract, which we understand will not actually come into effect until next April.

[Chris Grayling]

That is simply not correct. We managed a transition strategy that kept existing programmes going until the first part of this autumn, precisely to ensure that there was not a gap in provision between what we inherited and what we were putting in place.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me make a few brief points. There is a lot of emotion and pain about rising unemployment, for the many reasons that were eloquently expressed by many Members from across the Chamber, including, as the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). We make those emotional points strongly not because we want to re-fight the class wars of the 1980s and 1990s, but because we want to ensure that we learn to understand the impact of letting unemployment rise unchecked without properly and effectively intervening. I therefore hope that Government Members will not misinterpret me when I say that one of the things that we should learn about—in addition to what happens when whole generations are lost, along with the insult and disrespect that they feel—is what that leads to, in terms of alienation and the kind of behaviours it can drive. When we look at the lessons from the interim report of the official inquiry into the riots, I hope that we will take note of the rising sense of alienation among our young people and ensure that our employment policies specifically address it.

I want to ask a couple of questions about the Work programme. It cannot resolve the shortage of jobs, but it can prepare people to be better able to take the opportunities if and when they are made available. It is a matter of great regret to many Labour Members that there is so little transparency about how the Work programme is performing.

I hope that the introduction of the wage subsidy, which it seems might be related in some way to the operation of the Work programme, will not mean a double payment to Work programme providers or a double cost to the economy. I hope the Minister can reassure us on that. I hope, too, that he will say something about whether providers continue to see Work programme contracts as viable. Providers in my region are certainly expressing the concern to me that the lack of jobs means that it will not be possible for them to carry on without coming back to have further discussions with the Government about the payment structure and rewards built into the contracts. We need to know just how Ministers see the economic and financial viability of the Work programme in these very different economic circumstances from those in which the contracts were designed and let.

The Minister should acknowledge that the payment structure in the Work programme does not reward people only for getting someone a job and keeping them there for two years. There should be interim payments all the way through. When we look at the way in which people are moving into employment, I am particularly concerned that we do not move them just to short-term, stop-go, sporadic episodes of employment, whereby Work programme providers pick up some of the payment and redesign their model to make it sufficiently economically viable for them to keep the contract manageable, but do not deliver the sort of long-term sustainable jobs that I think we all want.

Finally, let me support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). The Government have tools at their disposal not to make the situation worse. I ask them to look urgently at two aspects of tax credits. The first is about the operation of the rule that, as my hon. Friend said, requires couples to work a minimum of 24 hours. We know that employers are not able to offer more hours in the current economic climate, and that rule is going to drive people out of the workplace. I also ask Ministers to look once again at the operation of the child care element of working tax credit. Aviva has shown us that about 32,000 women are leaving the workplace because they cannot make work pay. That is a false economy, and I hope Ministers will—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

Living Standards

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will indeed. The point I was making was that, as the universal credit comes forward in the next two years, it will do huge amounts to ensure that the incentives to return to work are improved. Secondly—and this relates to complaints from Opposition Members about the tax credit—it will reset the baseline so that those incentives will be increased and improved. Had we remained in the same position as the previous Government with their tax credits, there would be no way back for us now.

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

I am well aware that the Secretary of State has great hopes for the universal credit to incentivise people into paid employment, but does he accept that the cumulative effect of last year’s Budget and spending review, this year’s Budget and yesterday’s statement is that the incentives to work for low-paid employees have been worsened as a result of the reduction in support for child care costs through the tax credit, the cut in child benefit, the freezing of the lone parent and couples element of tax credits and the fact that it is all set against a rise in living costs that families cannot afford to meet?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Seen over the whole period of this Parliament, and taking into account things such as lifting the tax allowances, the commitment of the coalition to lift them further before the end of the Parliament, and a whole variety of the points that I have already laid out, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. When Opposition Members look back, they will realise that the introduction of the universal credit will result in positive work incentives and we will get people back to work, as we are already doing.

I have already mentioned some of the things that have been introduced in the past year and a half, and yesterday the Chancellor also announced reforms to support working families which no Opposition Member has taken into consideration. We have deferred the fuel duty increase planned for January and cancelled the inflation increase planned for August 2012. The tax on petrol will be a full 10p lower than it would have been without our action in the Budget this autumn, and that means that families will save £144 on filling up the average family car by the end of next year. Fuel and the cost of driving are a very big driver of poverty and we are doing something about it. We are also regulating the rise in fares on national rail, the London tube and London buses, and we have already offered councils the resources for another year’s freeze in council tax, which I hope they all take up. Our plans to raise personal tax allowances will pull over 1 million people out of tax altogether, which is a big incentive for people to go back to work. When the Opposition complain about changes to working tax credits, they should remember their punitive decision to abolish the 10p starting rate of tax. They did not care what happened to the poorest in society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

We have accepted all of Professor Harrington’s proposals. Let me draw to my hon. Friend’s attention the fact that the number of successful appeals against the work capability assessment are substantially lower than for its predecessor, the personal capability assessment.

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

What work have the Minister and her Department undertaken with employers to make them more aware of hidden disabilities and the adaptations that they may need to make in the workplace to enable disabled people to keep or obtain a job?

[Maria Miller]

As the hon. Lady knows, we work on an ongoing basis with employers through a number of forums. In particular, I am aware of the work that an organisation such as BT does to support its employees in such matters. It is by showcasing that sort of good practice that we will get a better understanding more broadly among employers.

Disability Hate Crime

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the chance to open this debate.

Writer and journalist Katherine Quarmby, who addressed a joint meeting of the all-party groups on disability and learning disability in Parliament a couple of months ago, told us that in the course of her research into the subject she had been unable to find much evidence that disability hate crime had been debated in either House in Parliament. I am glad that we are able to put that right today.

The issue concerns many hon. Members from across the House. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has done a great deal of work on this subject, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who will be responding to the debate from the Labour Front Bench.

I acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to align the tariff for murder where disability is a motivating or aggravating feature with that for race, religion and sexuality, which he made in response to my amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last month. That amendment enjoyed the support of a number of hon. Members from across the House.

That commitment was a useful step in the right direction and one that organisations such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others have been calling for. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s undertaking and look forward to hearing in more detail how the Government will progress his commitment.

The reality is that sentencing for murder is just the tip of a deeply disturbing and significant problem. As the recent EHRC report “Hidden in plain sight” has shown, attitudes, behaviours and practices, both institutional and individual, are contributing to a growing climate of hostility towards disabled people and fall well short of being a satisfactory response to the harassment of those people and the commission of crimes against them. I hope that today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to tell us specifically what actions the Government are taking to address so-called disability hate crime and to tackle one of the nastiest, most disgraceful forms of crime in our society. The coalition Government have promised a hate crime action plan, but we are still waiting for it. Disabled people, their families and campaigners are rightly anxious for action now.

The EHRC reports that around 1.9 million disabled people were victims of crime in 2009-10. We do not know how many were victims of harassment, but we do know that disabled people face a greater risk of being a victim of crime than people who are not disabled. There is also evidence that disabled people are more likely to experience antisocial behaviour, although more research is needed on that to confirm the scale of the problem. That is clearly unacceptable. What is worse, we also know that too often disabled people will feel forced to put up with a pattern of harassment, humiliation, antisocial behaviour and low-level criminal behaviour and come to accept it as an inevitable part of their lives.

What may start as relatively low-level harassment all too often escalates, becoming intolerable for the victim. In the worst cases, it can spiral to the point of violence, even murder, or to a situation in which victims and their families are simply unable to carry on with their lives. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the shocking case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francecca, whose suffering of persistent harassment and abuse ultimately led to their deaths.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this important debate. She has mentioned the issue of attacks on people with disabilities. Does she not agree that there needs to be a campaign to increase awareness of that? We congratulate Mencap on its excellent “Stand by Me” campaign, but does she not agree that such awareness needs to start back at primary school? Schools need to have a role and to teach our young people to have respect for people with disabilities.

[Kate Green]

Indeed, and I will say a little more about that. It is an important point that highlights that some of the perpetrators of really shocking instances of abuse and criminal behaviour are very young. Intervening early to demonstrate to them the absolute unacceptability of such behaviour is clearly the right thing to do.

Cases such as that of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington are of course the extreme, but they exist in a context of rising hostility to disabled people, which fuels abusive behaviour and leads to an increase in the harassment of them. Recent research for Scope by ComRes has shown that 47 % of disabled people feel that attitudes towards them had got worse over the past year, with 66% of disabled people reporting experiencing aggression, hostility or name calling.

A study published last month by the Glasgow Media Group, which analyses how the media are reporting disability in the context of Government spending cuts, reveals a major shift in how disabled people are portrayed, and the negative impact that that is having, both on public attitudes and on disabled people themselves. The research found a fall in media coverage that described disabled people in sympathetic and deserving terms, and an increase in the number of articles focusing on disability benefit fraud. Researchers observed an increase in articles portraying disabled people as a “burden” on the economy, with some articles even blaming the recession on incapacity benefits claimants.

Harassment and attacks exist and flourish in that context of hostility—a context, it has to be said, to which politicians are helping to contribute. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the derogatory and damaging language that has surrounded too much of the debate about welfare reform, and will give her commitment that there is a determination across Government to stamp out any negative portrayal of disabled people.

Although attitudes and language are important, campaigners have rightly identified the need for a much wider, whole-system change. That requires that public bodies and the professionals who work in them treat all manifestations of disability-related harassment and hate crime with the utmost seriousness. Too often, victims fail to report harassment and attacks, because they are unsure to whom they should report them, or because they feel that they will not be believed. Too often, when attacks are reported, the response of the professionals is to focus on the behaviour of the victim and how that should change. In other words, they focus on how victims should curtail their lives to avoid finding themselves in a situation in which they continue to experience harassment. That cannot be right. The priority must be to focus on the behaviour of the perpetrators, to challenge behaviour that is unacceptable, to deal appropriately with criminal behaviour and to take all necessary steps to prevent it occurring.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has just made the point about people being subjected to patterns of harassment. Is she hearing from police officers that they are increasingly conscious that, when younger officers or officers who are new to an area produce a report and check the books, they find that that report is the latest in a series of reports about harassment being suffered by a particular individual? It is almost because a report forms part of a pattern that the police are inclined to say, “There is nothing we can do about it”, because nothing has happened about the previous reports. The police fail to appreciate the cumulative impact of this sort of antisocial behaviour and constant harassment. Such behaviour and harassment should be a call to action rather than a call to indifference.

[Kate Green]

That is an important point and I am sure that it is one that the police will also take note of. Too often there is an attitude that nothing can be done because the victim is disabled and there is scepticism about what disabled victims say. One shocking case, quoted in Katharine Quarmby’s book “Scapegoat”, was that of a blind woman who had been sexually assaulted, but the response of the police was that it was not possible to proceed with the case because, of course, she had not seen her attacker.

In its report, “Hidden in plain sight”, the EHRC has proposed a number of important measures to help to improve the situation. First, there must be leadership and ownership of the issue across all public bodies. This is not an issue simply for one arm of government. It cuts across central Government Departments, local government, the criminal justice system, the education system, health, housing, care, transport, employment and so on. Therefore, a signal from the Minister today of the seriousness with which the Government regard the issue will be important. However, warm words will not be enough. Disabled people want to know how Ministers will ensure that the issue remains a priority for ministerial attention across Government; what structures exist within Whitehall to focus attention and drive action; what accountability mechanisms will be put in place; how public institutions that fail to take action will be compelled to do so; and how Ministers will work with local government to ensure ownership of the issue at local level.

Secondly, such an approach must be informed and supported by the systematic gathering and monitoring of data that spell out the scale and severity of the problem, and by analysis of that data to support and direct policy makers’ attention to where action is needed. We know that there is significant under-reporting of harassment and abuse of disabled people, and there is a need to improve the recording and reporting of disability hate crime.

Radar has responded to that problem through its “Stop Disability Hate Crime” project, which is working with disabled people’s organisations and the authorities to develop a national independent disability hate crime reporting centre, which will provide minimum standards for other such centres, and raise awareness of disability hate crime and incidents and how to report them. The project also maps the disability hate crime third-party reporting sites that already exist or are being established. Also, a survey has been undertaken to find out why disabled people do not want to report disability hate crime and what would make them more confident to do so.

The Radar project is an important initiative and I hope that the Government will look carefully at the lessons that emerge from it, and at ways of strengthening the capacity of third-party hate crime reporting centres as a valuable way of increasing the incidence of reporting. Of course, it will be important that such centres follow minimum standards, but I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome Radar’s work in that area and look forward to its report, which is due to be published early next year.

Thirdly, practice at the front line is, of course, vital to ensure that action is taken swiftly to respond to and prevent harassment or criminal attacks on disabled people. That requires the engagement, attention and effort of a range of public institutions. Crucially, those public institutions must work in partnership with each other and with disabled people to develop and to implement the right strategies to tackle disability hate crime. That partnership working can enable early identification of the patterns of behaviour that we have been discussing today, which is essential if problems are not to escalate. Today those patterns are too often missed, or cases are dealt with in isolation. As a result, the response of the authorities can be fragmented, inadequate or too slow.

In its 2009 report on the security of disabled people, the EHRC pointed out that a range of public authorities were not playing any preventive role: housing associations, social care providers, health care providers, the voluntary and community sector and local authorities. Too often, there is an inadequate response to incidents even when they are reported. That must change. Although there has been some progress in the response of the criminal justice agencies, action across the piece is needed and it is in that context that the Government’s action plan will be so important.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and bringing this matter to the Chamber today. Society is always measured by how it treats those who are less well-off, and that is true of individuals as well as of society as a whole. She has discussed a campaign that she hopes the Government will support. Does she feel that that campaign should not only be an England and Wales campaign but a campaign that goes to Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? If so, perhaps the catalyst to make that happen will come from this Chamber today. I ask the Minister to consider that point too in her response to the debate.

[Kate Green]

That is also an important point, and if there is good practice from which we can learn we will want to learn it in every part of the United Kingdom.

The Government’s action plan will need to include action on developing a better understanding of the motivations of perpetrators of disability hate crime, and of the interventions that are effective in changing such behaviour. It must be a priority to develop appropriate interventions that can be made in schools, which have already been mentioned, in the criminal justice system, through family and community programmes, and in other settings. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what analysis and action the Government are considering with regard to those interventions.

The action plan must also address the need for proper training of front-line professionals who may be required to recognise and respond to issues of disability-related harassment. Such training must include training in communication skills and understanding and recognising signals of abuse. I hope that the Minister will be specific today about the steps that the Government are taking to make progress on those matters and I look forward to hearing her response.

Before I conclude, I want to highlight one especially vulnerable group of victims—those people with learning disabilities who have experienced sexual violence or abuse. All too often in those cases, the perpetrator is a partner, a family member or a carer, so the attack is compounded by an abuse of intimacy and a breach of the victim’s trust.

A shockingly high proportion of women with learning disabilities have experienced sexual abuse. The problems that other victims of disability hate crime experience are magnified for these women by their not being believed, by professionals not knowing how to address the issue, and by abuse continuing and escalating over a long period, which happens all too often.

During the summer, I attended a conference with a group of learning disabled women to discuss the measures that are needed to address that form of abuse. The conference was jointly organised by the rape crisis centre in my own borough of Trafford, Salford university and Change, an organisation that is run by and for learning disabled people.

The learning disabled women present at the conference, who themselves were victims of sexual abuse, were absolutely clear about the action that is needed. I should say that they were also prepared to acknowledge that there have been improvements in parts of the criminal justice system, including better awareness among the police, greater understanding of their circumstances and their needs by the Crown Prosecution Service, and greater responsiveness from the courts. However, they also highlighted the need for specialist advice and support to be much more widely available. They spoke about a lack of access to health services and other support services, which happened for a number of reasons: sometimes because of discrimination, sometimes because of a lack of communication skills, and sometimes because they and other learning disabled women were not empowered to express their needs. They repeated that there was a need for training for front-line professionals, which they strongly suggested should be delivered by learning disabled women themselves. They identified an additional barrier that they faced, which was dealing with workers who did not have the confidence to deal with them as learning disabled women.

Women often want to use mainstream services where they can, but feel that the staff are often not equipped to support them. In her role as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I hope that the hon. Lady takes these points up urgently with colleagues in the relevant Departments, and urges them to engage directly with learning disabled women in formulating Government policy.

I want to put on record my gratitude to the disabled people and their families who have taken the time to describe to me the deeply distressing, shocking and vicious attacks they have experienced, and how the system has sometimes let them down. I also want to thank the families of Keith Philpott and Gary Skelly, members of the Disability Hate Crime Network, Simon Green and Stephen Brookes, and the women I met at Change. Their stories of abuse, violence and in some cases death, have brought home to me that there remains a dark and primitive side to our attitudes to disabled people, which still too often manifests itself in harassment and criminal behaviour that simply cannot be tolerated in any civilised society. I am pleased that we are debating the issue this morning. It must not remain hidden in plain sight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I start by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. I recognise that she has long been a champion on the issue. As someone who sat on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will table amendments in the House of Lords to offer disabled victims of crime the same protection as those who are targeted because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. The provisions were pushed for by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).

Although I am particularly pleased to learn that the Government will be tabling those amendments, I hope that they will seek to build on experience north of the border. In 2010, Scotland became the first country in Europe to have specific disability hate crime legislation on its statute book. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 makes provision for statutory aggravations that can be attached to offences motivated by prejudice towards disabled or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and requires courts to say what impact, if any, those aggravating factors have had on sentencing.

In Scotland, any criminal offence that is partly or wholly motivated by prejudice on such grounds is to be dealt with as a hate crime all the way through the system. For example, the offence could be assault, vandalism, verbal threats, abuse that could be charged as breach of the peace, or any other crime. If the person committing the offence uses disability-prejudiced language, or if there is any other evidence of a prejudiced motive, that makes it a hate crime. If anyone witnessing a crime thinks it was a hate crime, the police must record it as a hate incident. If there is any evidence of a hate motive—for example, prejudiced language—it will be charged as a hate crime. If the person charged is found guilty, the hate motive will be taken into account in sentencing, and the court must say publicly what difference the hate motive made to the sentence.

[Kate Green]

It is interesting to hear about the experience in Scotland, from which I am sure we can learn. I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman said—that if anyone identifies the crime as a hate crime it must be treated as a hate crime. Is it not also important to recognise that although victims themselves often specifically exclude the possibility that it was a hate crime, that in itself should not be taken at face value, because there may be all sorts of pressures on them not to identify it as such?

[Mike Crockart]

I absolutely agree. In fact, the hon. Lady’s intervention feeds very nicely into my next point. Twenty years ago, when I was going through basic training as a police officer, racial incidents were going through the self-same process. When someone was the target of a racial incident and did not necessarily feel that it was one, the fact that someone else had witnessed the incident was sufficient to make it a racial incident. That was the test that I was taught to use 20 years ago. I have to admit that at the time it felt excessive, but it was only thus that such crimes and incidents became generally unacceptable. In that way, there was a move to general agreement that much of the racist language of the ’70s and ’80s, which was tolerated by the silent majority, was derisive and abusive. Such a move is required in attitudes to disability hate crime, and is massively overdue. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that the amendments that the Government have now promised to table in the Lords will go further and build on the experience in Scotland, affording a similar level of protection in England and Wales.

The announcement from the Government signals recognition, welcome to us all, of the need to tackle those despicable crimes. It is also heartening for me to help push forward the agenda that my predecessor in Edinburgh West worked on in the previous Parliament. Responding to a parliamentary question tabled by my predecessor, John Barrett, in April 2008, the then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said:

“The Home Office is responsible for the police recorded statistics. Statistics are collected on the number of racially or religiously aggravated offences but no information is available on those offences which are specifically ‘disability hate’ crimes.”—[Official Report, 29 April 2008; Vol. 475, c. 330W.]

I welcome what the Government have already done, specifically the coalition commitment to improve the recording of such crimes. Since April 2011, all police forces now report hate crimes centrally. Published data from the Association of Chief Police Officers show increases in the number of disability hate crimes reported in 2010—a 21.3% increase on the recorded figures in 2009. This must be one of the few areas where we can welcome a large increase in reported crime, as it shows that the push for people to report the crimes is having an effect.

I await the promised hate crime action plan and the Government response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry, but it is positive that the issue is finally receiving the attention that it deserves, although of course it is a shame that this or any Government have to tackle it at all. Such horrific cases as the killings of Brent Martin, Steven Hoskin or Fiona Pilkington should assault our consciousness as a decent society and daily remind us how serious the situation can become if left unchecked. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission noted in its “Hidden in plain sight” inquiry, we need to look at preventive strategies alongside any legislative changes, ensuring that we nip in the bud such attitudes and behaviours before they escalate. We also need to address the wider geographical, social and economic factors, identified in the Commission’s research, that can leave disabled people and others at greater risk.

A change of attitude in this country is vital. After all, it is not disabled people who create their oppression, it is others. As previously said, and as Sir Ken Macdonald so eloquently argued in one of his final speeches as Director of Public Prosecutions, we must overcome a prevailing assumption that disabled people’s intrinsic vulnerability explains the risk that they face, an assumption unsupported by evidence. At best, that had led to protectionism, constraining rather than expanding the individual freedom and opportunity that greater safety and security should provide. Only by extending the same expectations of safety and security to disabled people as to everyone else can we truly address the deficits in our current approach and wake up to the need to act. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on those points as well.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are currently finishing an inquiry into independent living, which has looked at various aspects such as access to welfare, housing and employment and the differences in provision between different local authorities and nations. We have even had the Minister along recently to answer various questions about Government policy. However, I now realise that we have omitted investigation of a basic element. A constituent part of ensuring access to independent living is laid out in article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and”—

crucially—“security of person.” What is clear from many of the dreadful examples that we have heard today is that that security is put at risk daily by the criminal acts of a few, which are unfortunately tolerated by many more.

As a member of the JCHR, I have also taken note of the EHRC’s endorsement of the mechanisms of the Human Rights Act 1998, which it says are essential for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. The EHRC also argues that the existing law is well crafted to balance Britain’s international obligations with its constitutional conventions. In particular, the existing Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty and the role of British judges in interpreting the legislation, and has allowed many people to exercise their basic rights without the time and expense of taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the Minister can reassure me and other members of the Joint Committee that any revision of the Human Rights Act will not change that crucial lifeline for those who are disabled.

In conclusion, I welcome the issue finally receiving the attention it deserves. I await further concrete steps by the Government to deal with this hidden crime.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up his new post. I am sure he agrees that a balance must be struck between dealing with rising longevity by having a plan to increase the state pension age over time, and offering short-term certainty to women who need to be able to plan their personal finances. We must not keep adjusting our pensions policy just because longevity keeps on rising. A sensible balance must be struck.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes her point with greater eloquence than I could muster, and she sums up the crux of our case.

Labour set two tests for the Pensions Bill, and the Government continue to fail both of them. They fail the first test of giving fair and due notice, to which my hon. Friend just referred. Even if amended in line with the Government proposals, the Bill will not give those 500,000 women fair and proper notice of the rise in their state pension age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

As so much that I agree with and endorse has been said, I am sure I can be very brief.

That we have had any concessions at all from the Government today is a tribute to the many women who have contacted Members on both sides of the House. We are disappointed, however, as this is a half-baked measure. It is half-baked in two respects. It is half-baked as it deals with only part of the problem and only some of the women who are adversely affected, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, we had an opportunity to solve this problem and move forward. It is also half-baked because it does not offer a holistic response to the situation these women face. Rather, it addresses only the question of when we might grudgingly start to hand them their state pension, and it does not deal at all with the other elements of public policy that will be needed to support those women if they are not going to be eligible for a state pension until later.

Especially as we know that women’s private pension pots are significantly lower than men’s, it is regrettable that we are seeking to delay their access to the state pension before the new auto-enrolment in the National Employment Savings Trust has been in place for long enough for them to have had the opportunity to begin to build up a private pension pot. If these women are expected to remain in the workplace for longer, it is regrettable that there are no signs that the Government’s Work programme will be adapted to be better suited to helping older women find, or remain in, jobs. No thought has been given to how the Work programme will support those women.

I would be grateful if the Minister said what assessment has been made of the other financial benefits these women may have to rely on if they are not able to find paid work at the ages of 64, 65 or 66, and whether the cost the Government are talking about includes the additional level of those benefits. That is a particular concern because if women are using up their savings, they may have to draw further on the state when they reach retirement.

Other colleagues have pointed out that many older women provide child care for their children’s children. Will those children in future have to access paid-for child care that the Government will in due course be subsidising through the tax credit or universal credit?

Also, what is the health strategy in relation to the health needs of these women? We know that women in their 60s are more likely than men to suffer from functional disabilities. Some 40% of women at age 60 have limitations in activities of daily living, and 20% have severe limitations. I have not heard that the Minister has given any thought to that, or had any discussions with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that we are also securing better health for those women if we expect them to remain in paid work for longer.

The key additional points I wanted to make were about the absence of a holistic response from the Government. They have hastily introduced a half-baked measure—and a fairly vicious measure for the many hundreds of thousands of women who are still being put in a situation in which their retirement is substantially delayed without their having the resources to carry themselves through to that point. I urge the Minister to think again.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister may feel that he has heard my speech before, as we discussed his Government’s plans to accelerate the rise in state pension age at some length in Committee. However, as he did not fully address the points I made then, I make no apology for making them again.

My constituent, Lorraine Smedley, e-mailed me on Friday asking if anything can be done even at this late stage. The answer must be yes. The Minister can still change his mind; he can accept our amendment that would ensure that no one would wait more than an extra 12 months to receive their pension. Also, if he chooses not to listen, Members on the Government Benches can still decide to join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight. I hope they will do so, although the contributions we have heard so far suggest that they will not.

Members who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee will not know about my constituent Lorraine, so let me explain why she is so angry about the Government’s plans. Lorraine worked for the national health service for many years, but, having put aside some savings, she decided to take a part-time job as she moved towards her expected retirement date. She had worked out that she could supplement her part-time wage until her retirement. She told me:

“I thought I was close enough to my retirement age to know where I stood.”

Even with the Government’s welcome concession, Lorraine is still being asked to work for an extra 15 months, and she says she does not know what to do. Working those extra 15 months before she receives her state pension is not a prospect she relishes. Her job as a community care assistant is demanding, both physically and emotionally, and she is not sure that she will be able to continue; and with the cuts in public service spending and public sector jobs, she may not have a job anyway. The prospect of claiming benefits is anathema to Lorraine. She was determined to pay her own way her whole life, and having left school at 16 and paid into the state pension pot all those years she feels that she should not have to rely on benefits now.

Lorraine’s case highlights the two reasons why the Government’s proposals are unfair. First, they do not give women adequate notice of the change. The Minister has sprung these changes on women in their late 50s without giving them a realistic time scale in which to make preparations for the loss of pension payments that they have earned and expected over many years. In 1995, the then Government legislated for the equalisation of state pension ages. Women who were expecting to retire at 60 learned that they would have to wait until they were 65 to do so. They may not have liked it but they had many, many years to adjust. Yet that same group—those same women—who knew that they would have to work or wait for an extra five years for their pension, are now being asked to accept a further rise of more than a year with just five or seven years’ notice of the change.

The second reason why the Government have got it wrong is that the changes lead to one group being asked to bear an unfair share of the burden. According to the Department’s impact assessment, the proposals in the Bill affect about 5 million people—2.3 million men and 2.6 million women. About 4.5 million people will have their state pension age increased by a year or less, and their position is unaffected by the Minister’s last-minute amendment. An estimated 500,000 people, all of them women born between 6 October 1953 and 5 October 1954, will still have their pension age increased by more than a year. Some 300,000 women will experience an increase of exactly 18 months. No man will have to wait more than 12 months extra to receive his pension. How is that fair?

I accept that there has been a significant upward revision in the life expectancy of those reaching 65 over the next decade and that those benefiting from increased longevity should share in the costs. As we live longer, we need to pay more towards our income in retirement and/or work longer. The women like Lorraine who have written to me do not disagree—they understand that they may need to work longer—but they think that they should pay a fair share. The Minister did not explain in Committee so I hope he will explain now how it is fair that those 500,000 women have to pay a bigger share than anyone else, particularly given that we also know that they, as a group, are not well-equipped to bear a greater share of that burden.

As my hon. Friends have set out, these women are less financially secure than men and are much more likely to be reliant on the state pension. If they do have savings for their pension, those are likely to be much less than those of men. These women are likely to have taken time out of the labour market to care for children, thus affecting their contributions record and their salary level. They are likely to have worked part-time and to have been excluded from an occupational pension scheme until the 1990s. The Department’s own figures confirm this: the median pension savings of a 56-year-old woman are, as has been said, just £9,100, whereas the equivalent figure for men is £52,800, which is almost 600% higher.

Although, like Lorraine, I welcome the Minister’s amendment, it just does not go far enough. Women should not bear an unfair burden, which is why I support the Labour amendments. They would mean that 1.2 million fewer people would have to work longer and would ensure that nobody would be asked to work more than 12 months extra to receive their pension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The issue of health is certainly important. Almost all the figures that have been quoted through the debate assume that the women whose pension age is being delayed will have no money. If, as the hon. Lady rightly says, they are unable to work because of ill health and the household has no other resources, they will get a significant amount of that money through employment and support allowance and other benefits.

Clearly, there are differences between individual groups and, as the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) pointed out, between different parts of the country, but if we look at England, Wales and Scotland, for example, in terms of life expectancy at 65, in England for men since 1981 life expectancy has increased by seven years. In Wales for men it has increased by seven years, and in Scotland for men it has increased by seven years. For women, each of those figures is six years, respectively. So although there are differences, there have been substantial increases across the board.

Yes, there is big variation. I accept that point, but there have been increases across the board and we cannot say that because they have not happened for every individual in every part of the country and in every social group, we will do nothing. That is what got us into the present mess in the first place.

[Kate Green]

I note that the Minister acknowledges that for some women with no other source of income, instead of receiving their state pension they may for a time continue to receive out-of-work benefits. Can he address two points in relation to that? First, what do the Government estimate will be the cost of those women receiving such benefits for an extended period? Secondly, does he not understand that for women who are at that age and stage in their life, being expected to claim something called jobseeker’s allowance is a tremendous insult or a tremendous concern because they know that they are not genuinely jobseekers? The labour market does not want or need them.

[Steve Webb]

On the hon. Lady’s first point, we have of course taken account of the fact that there will be some women, and indeed some men, for whom the changes mean that instead of receiving a retirement pension, they receive jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance or another benefit. To give her an order of magnitude on that, without making allowance for that, the Bill would have saved around £33 billion. Taking account of that, we estimate a saving of around £30 billion, so getting on for 10% of the savings is lost through paying other benefits. That is entirely right and proper. In a way, her observation is backward-looking rather than forward-looking. We are moving to a world in which the idea of early retirement and drawing a pension at 60 years old or below, as in some public service schemes, is simply from another era, and the idea that someone should seek work, particularly if they are able-bodied, into their 60s is going to become entirely normal. The idea that it is somehow offensive to say that someone should look for work in their 60s is an idea from a bygone era; it is not the world that we are moving to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Perhaps the hon. Lady does not understand what I am saying. I am talking about people who will reach state pension age in seven or eight years’ time, so I am not sure that writing a letter, stating, “In the event you are on a certain benefit in seven or eight years’ time, and the delay in tribunals in such and such,” is germane to my point.

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), in a characteristically balanced contribution—[Interruption]—I spotted the balance even if nobody else did. She described the changes we are making today as a huge achievement, then said, “Well why don’t we go the whole hog,” but there are 11.1 billion reasons why we are not going to go the whole hog, and I am sure she understands that point.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here”—and so say all of us. I do not think that any one of us would have chosen to inherit an annual deficit of £150 billion that had to be cleared up—[Interruption.] Members say from a sedentary position, “This isn’t about the deficit,” but a sequence of deficits creates a debt, which will be £1.4 trillion at the end of this Parliament, and that is both a capital sum and the interest that our children and grandchildren will have to pay, so we should take responsibility for it and tackle it.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that the Work programme does not do anything for older women, but its beauty is that providers do not get paid unless they tailor what they do to the individual in front of them. For example, we find that the biggest barrier for many potential older workers is IT skills; they are entirely job-ready but not necessarily up to speed with technology. So, if that is the barrier, the Work programme provider does not need to come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval, as in the old days, asking whether it is on a departmental checklist; they just get on with it, help the person obtain the skills and are rewarded only if they get that individual a job.

[Kate Green]

I understand how the Work programme proposes to reward providers, but does the Minister not accept that older women are particularly disadvantaged when seeking to access the labour market? Can he tell us, therefore, whether there will be an incentive payment to such providers in dealing with those older women?

[Steve Webb]

The incentive is clear: the providers do not get any money at all unless they help someone into work.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned grandparents: women in the age group under discussion who by taking care of grandchildren enable their sons and daughters to work. That is an important point, and that is why I was pleased to carry through in office proposals that had previously been brought forward on national insurance credits for grandparents—when their daughters are not using them—to ensure that their state pension rights do not suffer.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked why we did not do all that earlier and referred to Second Reading, but I remind her that in that debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the basic principle of the Bill is right—that we move to equality sooner and to aged 66 in 2020. We have been entirely consistent with what he said, but he also said that we need to make sure that the transition is fair and that those most adversely affected are helped. That is exactly what we deliver on today with the amendments.

We have identified, notwithstanding the difficult fiscal position, £1.1 billion to ensure that half a million people face a shorter increase in their pension age, and that a quarter of a million women who could have faced up to 24 months will now face a maximum of 18 months. It is worth keeping in context the fact that nine out of 10 people affected by the Bill will see an increase of one year or less in their state pension age.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who spoke last, said, “Well, it’s only a bit of money,” and, “It’s penny pinching,” and all I can say is that many people think that £1.1 billion is a lot of money. I know that it is a naïve observation, but I am in that category as well.

It was important to allocate to this issue a large amount of time for debate today, but we have simply had a repeat of what we heard in Committee: “Find £10 billion or £11 billion—it’ll come from somewhere, it’s not really a lot of money.” From the Government, however, we have seen a serious balance struck between introducing the fiscal responsibility that was all too often lacking under the previous Government and listening and responding to the needs of those most affected by the Bill—and I commend our amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is an excellent point, and I hope we all fervently agree that competition in this area would be an excellent improvement. Locking in your retirement income is the second most important financial decision that you will ever make. I apologise; I do not mean you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but an individual. Unlike buying a house, however, it is a completely irreversible decision—one that will last for the rest of the individual’s life.

The different rates offered by different providers could mean one’s retirement income being as much as 20% lower if one does not shop around. If we are unlucky enough to suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, a heart condition, kidney failure, certain types of cancer, multiple sclerosis or chronic asthma or if we smoke, the one bright side is that a 40% higher retirement income could be achieved by shopping around. People who have enjoyed good health in their career but been in a hazardous occupation such as mining might find someone who will offer them a better retirement income. The right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who is no longer in his place, knows that this does not apply to the state pension, but for the pensions we are talking about that involve the insurance market, those factors do apply. My fellow Select Committee members and I thus feel strongly about the value of this particular approach.

[Kate Green]

I am pleased to welcome the hon. Lady’s new clause. Does she agree that many people are reluctant or even in denial when it comes to facing decisions about their pensions and that there is a real opportunity here to spread a good news message about both the value of saving and making positive decisions about how to invest the product of that saving, thus providing an opportunity for the pensions industry to get on the front foot in engaging people in their long-term financial security?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome that sensible intervention. I think this will completely transform the landscape. I spoke about an individual with a £200,000 lump sum at retirement. If we multiply that by the up to 10 million additional savers that we could be looking at, it shows how this country’s savings culture is going to be transformed. The scale of the issue to which new clause 1 refers will get much bigger over time.

The Minister reassured us in his earlier comments that there is a cross-departmental working group. I certainly hope that that group will move quickly to come up with some firm recommendations. I know that all who are signatories to this particular new clause look forward to that. We look forward, too, to seeing the action that will come about as a result.

Disabled Young People (Support)

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd]

I agree totally. The Prince’s Trust does outstanding work in this area throughout the United Kingdom. I am delighted to add that compliment into Hansard. The Prince’s Trust does a fantastic job.

The final stage, which is the destination, is the most important. Young people’s quality of life, as does everyone’s, depends on satisfaction with their destination and opportunity to thrive in the future. The best outcome of a transition is for the young people to be living in a place that they have chosen and to be doing what they want to do, with the support that is right for them. If the transition planning and process are followed in the way that Mencap describes and that I have been delighted to outline, in our view the outcome can be expected to be positive.

On other challenges with older disabled children or young disabled adults, a report published by Ofsted last month has highlighted some significant failings in the system. Too many children in further education with disabilities are failing to gain the qualifications needed to get a job or to continue with their education. The report also highlights the reduced support available once such individuals reach 19, which means that they are often burdened with insufficient advice about personal budgets, the requirement to pay fees and uncertainty about benefits entitlement. In fact, a recent study reported that in 2009 an estimated 30% of young people who had a statement of special educational needs when they were in year 11 and 22% of young people with a declared disability were not in any form of education, employment or training when they reached the age of 18, compared with 13% of their peers. Current figures from the labour force survey for the first quarter of 2011 show that 41% of men and 43% of women designated longer-term disabled were economically inactive. Surely such a high figure historically shows that little progress has been made in recent years. It is time that we all do more to do better by our young disabled fellow citizens.

Although since 2008 local authorities have been required to carry out multi-agency assessments for pupils with statements of need or in receipt of support before their transition to a post-16 provider, inspectors found that those arrangements were not working effectively. Providers had received a completed learning difficulty assessment in only a third of the case studies in which one should have been made available.

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

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman secured this important debate. Does he agree that there also is a problem earlier in the process, in the through-planning as children move from primary to secondary school? The assessments often take place after the child has arrived in secondary school, rather than in advance to enable preparation to be made for it.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Yes, I agree. I will touch on what the Green Paper says about SEN, but the problem that the hon. Lady raises is clearly of long standing.

The learning difficulty assessments were found to be not always timely or adequately completed, and did not form a reliable basis on which to plan support or an appropriate programme of learning. The transition at age 19 from children’s to adult services, and from the Young People’s Learning Agency to the Skills Funding Agency, created barriers for learners when they encountered different criteria for funding. Learners and their parents or carers identified that they would have welcomed more advice and careers guidance when they received a personal budget for purchasing a learning programme, care and support.

I am conscious, as I am sure the Minister is, that I am covering a range of responsibilities which is perhaps broader than her remit, but that is the reality of disability, in particular in the transition for disabled children or young adults, because so many different areas of Government and statutory services are touched. As I was drafting my speech, I half envisaged five different Ministers from the different Departments attending today because the subject covers such a wide area, but somehow I knew, even with my delusions of grandeur, that that would be unlikely.

Too little is known about the destinations of learners once they leave post-16 provision. A more systematic national approach to the collection and analysis of data about learners’ destinations would help to ensure that limited public resources were deployed effectively to support learners in making a successful transition to adult life.

Finally, I come to the Government’s proposed welfare changes, such as the transfer from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment and the reforms to housing benefit. I am a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions—I am delighted to see some colleagues are present—and I support the direction of travel of many of the changes being proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular the Work programme. We are discussing young adults and children, but about 2 million children today are growing up in households in which no one works. That is a national scandal which I hope that the Work programme will address rationally and productively—I think that it is doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am also pleased that the Minister responsible for disabled people will respond to it because, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd)—I have called him my hon. Friend because we are colleagues on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and have discussed these matters in that Committee on many occasions—we are covering a very wide ambit of departmental responsibilities in the debate. It is good that the Minister who can draw all those together for us in government will respond to the debate. We are pleased that she is here this morning.

Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I want to focus on some of the transition issues. Of course, for disabled young people, transition is quite a protracted process. It begins when they are in their mid-teens and can stretch right through until they are in their mid-20s as they transfer from children’s services to adult services in terms of how the social care package and social support are provided. Like all young people, they may move on from school to a college or higher education setting and, in due course, to employment. During that period, they may also seek to leave the family home and set up on their own. It is important that we consider how we support young people through those transitions economically, as well as through the care packages that they receive.

I am fortunate to have had some extremely helpful briefing from Every Disabled Child Matters, as other hon. Members have, and from the transition support co-ordinator at my local authority. One message that comes through clearly is the need for a planned approach to the transition; it cannot be left to chance. In addition, it is important that that planning begins early and is done with the young person and his or her family. Underlying what I want to get across today is the need to support disabled young people in achieving their aspirations. Too often, our aspirations for those young people, employers’ aspirations for them or even the aspirations of colleges, schools and social services for them are too low.

First, however, I will talk about some of the financial issues and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them. The hon. Member for Eastbourne has already alluded to the implications of the introduction of the personal independence payment in due course. The Minister was good enough to write to me before the summer recess about the arrangements that will be consulted on in relation to children and young people, who are not currently to migrate immediately on to PIP. I think that at that stage she was saying that no firm plans were in place and there would be wide consultation as plans were developed. I certainly welcome that, but she must understand that there is an awful lot of uncertainty and concern as a result of the process still not being firmly available to people so that they can understand what the Government might be contemplating, and for some young people—for example, a young man I met in my constituency who is on the autistic spectrum—uncertainty is a particular worry. We were told that he already, at the age of 17, was beginning to worry about what the transition would mean for him. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us more information about the process today.

If young people aged 16 to 18 are placed on a benefit, as I accept they are now with DLA, that is identical to what adults receive, how will that be designed appropriately to meet their needs? We are particularly concerned about that. We are also concerned—other hon. Members alluded to this—about the assessment process for young people. In his comments to me, the transition support co-ordinator in Trafford highlighted the fact that young people already go through multiple assessments for different packages of support and benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has highlighted one way in which we might ease the assessment process, by going to the individual rather than setting up a series of assessment hurdles that they have to come to and cross. It is a very imaginative idea, which I hope the Minister will explore.

I am concerned about another issue. The Minister has indicated in the past that it is not necessarily the case that young people as they turn 16 in 2013 will automatically be migrated on to PIP, but I would like to know what further thinking she has developed in relation to the transition period. Does she envisage a phased transfer of young people on to PIP from DLA? If so, what will the time scale be and who might go first?

The Minister will know that real concerns remain about the situation of children and young people if the extended qualifying period for PIP that is proposed for adults is also applied to them. Children’s conditions develop and change incredibly quickly in some cases. CLIC Sargent has estimated that, if the extended qualifying period for PIP were applied to children and young people, that could lead to nine out of 10 families, and 60% of all its clients, suffering financially.

[Mark Tami]

It is an important point that CLIC Sargent raises, because the onset of a cancer is very sudden and, although some children react very well to the treatment, some children do not and there is an up-and-down pattern, so it cannot be said that there is a consistent level of requirement for those children. It is therefore very important that the support is in place straight away and particularly when the parents have received that devastating news.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, many children’s conditions vary, progress and retreat much more suddenly and rapidly than those of adults. Crucially, children’s educational and social development is also taking place as they grow into young adulthood. If there are concerns about the financial support for children with medical conditions, that will also have wider developmental implications for them.

There is continuing uncertainty about children and young people in residential settings. I am particularly interested in young adults, some of whom are quite likely to want to look at residential colleges for their further education. The Minister wants to remove any duplication in funding in relation to the mobility component that people receive as part of DLA. I would be grateful if she could tell us how she expects to assess whether there is actually any duplication, because I have so far been unable to uncover much evidence of it. What assessment has she made of the implications for young people over the age of 16 in residential colleges, and particularly for their ability to participate as fully as possible in not only educational life but wider social life?

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne on housing benefit. I also want to highlight the concern that constituents have raised with me about the substantial costs of adapting housing and about the implications for them if the housing benefit changes and the housing benefit cap force them to move. It seems quite ridiculous that, as a result of other policies, we should disrupt families who might have had to make substantial investments to adapt their home accommodation. I hope that the Minister will indicate that there will be flexibility in the system to ensure that families of young disabled people, in particular, are not subject to great instability and do not have to move as a result of housing benefit changes. That is particularly important for the young people we are talking about, because such instability disrupts not only their social and educational networks but their medical and care networks in many cases.

[Jim Shannon]

On that point, which the hon. Lady has clearly illustrated, does she feel that the Government need a concerted policy to address housing benefit for young disabled people, considering that 10% of them will be homeless in a short period?

[Kate Green]

Clearly, that is an incredibly serious concern, which the Minister will want to take seriously. Like the hon. Gentleman, I very much look forward to hearing her reply to his suggestion.

I want to say something about employment and education. I echo other hon. Members’ comments about the need to encourage employers to be more willing to take on disabled people and to recognise the extensive capacity that many of them can bring to the workplace. However, I want to raise a few points with the Minister about the education and training environment in which young people prepare for employment.

Following the loss of the education maintenance allowance, what assessment is being made of the extent to which young disabled people in financial need can access other sources of financial support, including those provided by colleges and schools to enable people to continue and complete their education? With the loss of Connexions next year, how will the new predominantly web-based information and advice service for careers be tailored and adapted to meet the needs of young disabled people? How will the structure of integrated budgets, which are meant for young people’s living needs, be protected, so that people are not forced to dip into them to pay for their education, including transport to educational settings, books and equipment? Like other hon. Members, I am interested to hear what further steps the Minister thinks she can take in government to encourage employers to become more willing to employ young disabled people.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. There are many more issues that I would like to raise and which I am sure colleagues would like to raise. I am pleased that the Minister is here to listen to the debate, and I look forward to her response.

Welfare Reform Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to make my first contribution to this stage of proceedings on the Bill by welcoming an aspect of Government amendment 2. Specifically, it is enormously welcome that the short paragraph (e) will enable regulations to include

“a level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”

when overpayments are being recovered. That echoes the practice in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and other nations, which have legally enforceable, attachment-free limits when debts are being enforced, below which claimants must be protected. The limits relate to a national minimum income standard, which is set by a variety of methods. I am grateful to Professor John Veit-Wilson, Professor Elaine Kempson, Damon Gibbons of Debt on our Doorstep and Rev. Paul Nicolson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, who have helped me to prepare for this debate.

I would be pleased to see the principle of irreducible attachment-free minimums extended to all debts and to the unemployed, in particular to safeguard children’s, disability and housing benefits. That would prevent the damage that is done to physical and mental health by the enforcement of debt against poverty incomes, and the damage that that does to the capacity of the poorest adults to find and keep work.

In Sweden, the standards for a reasonable standard of living are uprated for price index changes every year and reset every five years by the National Board for Consumer Affairs. The standards are based on survey data on national household consumption patterns and current prices; statisticians and NBCA policy officials decide what is reasonable in terms of deviations from the averages. For example, for the past four years in the UK, the prices of food and domestic fuel have increased faster than the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. The standards are used by the social service board for setting benefits and by the tax authority for setting the tax threshold. The tax threshold is also used by the court enforcement authority to set its attachment-free sum for debt enforcement. That sum consists of two parts: variable housing costs and a fixed standard normal sum for all other living expenses.

There are clearly other methodologies for setting the minimum acceptable income standard below which incomes should be protected and attachment-free. In Committee, we explored work that is under way in this country at the universities of York and Loughborough, among others, to develop a minimum income standard that can command and be informed by the perceptions of the public. There is a range of options for assessing and setting the minimum standard below which there will not be deductions. There are examples from other nations where such a minimum is enforceable by the courts and related to national minimum income standards. In countries that have legally enforceable limits, the courts, in setting payment plans, can ensure that the debtor is left with a minimum level of income, taking account of family size.

I hope that the small but vital paragraph (e) in Government amendment 2 will begin an era of cross-party support for legally enforceable irreducible and attachment-free minimums when people are repaying debts, which are based on minimum income standards. That would contribute to a reduction in the huge cost of mental illness to the health service and the wider economy, and make a significant contribution to the reduction of poverty in the UK. I hope that we have an ambitious approach to setting that minimum.

[Chris Grayling]

I start by saying that I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I listened carefully to her points, a number of which she made in Committee. She has given a great deal of thought to these matters, and although I cannot offer her a guarantee that we will do all the things she wishes, I can say to her that we will take great care, in the regulations attached to the Bill, to ensure that we get the right balance. It has been clear for a long time in this country, and remains absolutely clear under the current Government, that in setting the levels of any deduction we have to be extremely careful not to tip people into hardship. In particular, we must not encourage them to leave work and end up moving them and their families down the poverty scale.

The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked how we would determine the level of earnings below which deductions for overpayments cannot be made. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and the circumstances of different families are very different. There may be a case in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, there is a deduction for child support, or the number of children in a family or a disability may be factors. Great care therefore has to be exercised.

The minimum level that we will pursue will be determined to ensure that the debtor is left with sufficient income to maintain themselves and their family, in line with similar provisions in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. We therefore plan to use the same basis that the previous Government used—for example, to determine deductions from benefit payments.

In many cases, however, a direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little negotiation with the debtor. There will be a prescribed minimum level that will not take account of individual circumstances. We will try to create a system whereby we are mindful of the need to reflect the circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way, and we certainly cannot go quite as far as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would wish.

If a debtor finds that they are unable to cope with the deductions being made from their earnings, they should contact us to discuss an alternative payment rate. Of course, they can avoid being placed in that situation, bearing in mind that we are discussing not people who are struggling to deal with something that they have already agreed but those who have wilfully refused to enter an agreement with us and are basically saying, “I’m not paying the money back”, or who have not even got to the point of saying anything to us at all.

Debtors who are repaying their overpayment by means of a direct earnings attachment will, in line with those repaying by other methods, be able to claim that the repayment rate causes them hardship and ask for it to be reduced. Although we of course have a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect public funds, we also take into account an individual’s financial and personal circumstances. The hon. Lady articulated a strong case for her points, but I cannot offer her quite as much as she would wish. However, I can offer her an assurance that we will always take an individual’s circumstances into account, particular where poverty, deprivation and hardship could arise.

The right hon. Member for East Ham made a point about employers. We will, of course, use the same mechanism for the attachment orders in the Bill as is used for child maintenance deductions. That process is well established through the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission system, and prior to that through the Child Support Agency, so it should not cause employers to recast their processes and do things very differently. On that basis, I am confident that it should not represent a significant additional burden on employers.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision for a £1,000 fine. In truth, there is no excuse for a refusal to engage in any part of the process. The orders will arise only because an individual claimant has refused to engage, and there is no real excuse for an employer to refuse to engage either. The matter should not be complicated, and it certainly should not be complex enough to cause an employer to decline an expansion in business or a recruitment to fill a vacancy. The process is established and many employers up and down the country are used to dealing with it, and I do not believe there will be significant extra burden on business.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how much employers could deduct for the administration charge, and the answer is an amount not in excess of £1 for each deduction. He asked for an assurance that the measure will not damage work incentives. The answer to that is that, as with all debt recovery, we must of course be mindful of the Department’s welfare obligations. As I said, recovery of overpaid benefits should not cause undue hardship. In the calculation of a repayment, we certainly would not want to push someone into a position in which they have to leave work to avoid payment under a DEA.

The operation of the DEA does not mean that the debtor will commence the repayment of their debt earlier than they would under another repayment method. The debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other arrangements to pay, or indeed to show that suspension of recovery was applicable in their case. We are not talking about people who have had no chance to engage and discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

If that would mean that people who are currently able to work for more than 16 hours had to give up their jobs altogether, I would not welcome it. That would be a seriously retrograde step. I accept that there is a case for supporting the cost of child care for people in mini jobs as well, but if the additional resources are not available to fund that, it would be a terrible mistake to press ahead and claw that money from people who depend on it to make work pay at the moment.

The Secretary of State set out at the seminar, at which I think the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was present, some of the possible options. The Children’s Society has analysed some of the options and concluded that under one of them a family could pay out £1.56p for every additional pound earned. Ministers told us that that problem would be eliminated by universal credit, but it now appears that, if they proceed on the basis of that option, the new system will be a great deal worse than the current one, and will introduce a draconian new penalty for working parents. As I said to her, there is a good case for supporting child care for people in mini jobs, but it must not come at the expense of parents being helped at the moment.

The recent report from the Resolution Foundation and Gingerbread also underlined the point that spreading the same budget among a lot more people will mean families losing money for every additional hour they work. The Government are right to express the aspiration that it should always pay to be in work, but in this case, if they pursue the option set out in the seminar, something will be lost in translation, because families will have to pay out in order to work. The current system does a far better job; the new system that is envisaged will be a severely retrograde step, if it has the effect of taking more than £1.50 off people for each extra pound they earn. The Government appear poised, once they have finally worked out what their policy is in this area, to make work far less attractive than at the moment.

The Government have failed to come up with a policy, so our new clause 2 proposes one: it would retain the percentage of child care costs covered and the cash limits in the current system; it would ensure that work continues to pay for those for whom it pays at the moment; and it would allow the retention of the existing 16 hours’ threshold. The Government say that they cannot afford any extra spending on child care at the moment. My case to the House is that support for child care for those in mini jobs would need to wait until there is funding for it in order to ensure that jobs of 16 hours per week actually pay, as they do at the moment.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous of the Government to make proposals to fund child care for mini jobs, given that the child care market is simply not designed in that way? Finding short episodes of child care for just a few hours a week is extremely difficult for parents, and could make child care provision even more financially unviable and drive providers out of the market?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and is absolutely right. People are worried about what the Government’s proposed changes will do to the child care market as a whole. It could make some providers uneconomical. If a large number of people currently using child care for more than 16 hours a week are forced, as a result of these changes, to give up their jobs and to withdraw from their child care places, it would put a huge dampener on, and cloud over, the whole child care market in the way she is right to fear. We feel strongly about this matter—the Government simply have not come up with a policy—so I will seek, if I can, to divide the House on new clause 2.

The Government’s failure to produce a policy on child care before the Bill leaves the House is a particularly abject failure. Ministers have not been able to turn their claims into policies. However, although child care might be the most spectacular and significant hole in the Government’s policy, it certainly is not the only one. In this group of amendments, therefore, we have tabled two further new clauses to fill the policy holes on passported benefits, such as free school meals and free prescriptions.

At the moment, people on out-of-work benefits are passported to those additional benefits, but the out-of-work benefits will be abolished, so who will be entitled to free school meals in future? Again, that is not an obscure, but a basic question and the Government have again failed to give us an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has a good deal more experience in these matters, if I may say so, than some of his Front-Bench colleagues who are dealing with them at the moment. Good provision, particularly for child care support, was of course made through the tax credit system. That strong support for the costs of child care is why there was such a dramatic rise in lone parent employment under the previous Government. I supported that and I suspect from what the hon. Gentleman just hinted at that he supported it and continues to support it today. The problem is that once tax credits are abolished and universal credit takes their place, we have no idea how child care is going to be supported in the future. That is why I am—rather modestly, I think—appealing for the Government to tell us.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that one of the real concerns we face as a result of universal credit forcing us to look at lumping all the different strands of financial support for families into a single payment is that all the eggs are in one basket, so if one thing goes wrong, the whole benefit—the whole structure of financial support for that family—could collapse?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For that very reason, the risks are great indeed. When I come on to speak to amendment 24 in a few moments, I will point out that if people go beyond a prescribed level of savings, they will lose all that help under all those headings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the attractions of supporting self-employment is that it often particularly helps those who find it difficult to access the traditional labour market, such as women, because they need to combine work with caring responsibilities and therefore need more flexible hours, and disabled people, who may not be able to access full-time work in a structured workplace but can do some work on their own at home? We also certainly know that there is a long-standing tradition of some of our ethnic minority communities finding that self-employment is the best way for them to sustain economic independence.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that self-employment is a crucial element of our economy for many people, including those with caring responsibilities; others who, for other reasons, are not necessarily able to commit to a full-time job; and, indeed, those who simply want the opportunity to build up a business for themselves—it is crucial that the system supports them. Tax credits have done so, but I am afraid that universal credit will not. That is a real worry and the approach being taken flies in the face of Government statements of support for self-employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole purpose of universal credit is to provide assistance to people who are trying to get back to work and to ensure that work always pays. I hope that the women of Bridgend will benefit, like those across the country, from the introduction of universal credit and the extra support that it will provide to ensure that they are better off in work.

[Kate Green]

I noted the Minister’s reminder a few moments ago that transitional protection would also be available in respect of child care costs. Can he confirm that one change in circumstances that can be predicted is that child care costs will vary between term time and school holidays and that that will not trigger a change in circumstances that would lead to the cancellation of transitional protection?

[Chris Grayling]

It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.

The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I shall deal with some of those other points in my later remarks, because they are all important subjects for debate. Indeed, the proposals in new clause 2 suggest a figure of £300 a week for this element. I was genuinely surprised that there were people who were getting as much as that. I do acknowledge the cost of child care in central London: I have paid it for many years, so I recognise what we are talking about. However, £300 a week is a lot of money—it works out as £15,600 a year. It is indeed a generous cap.

I propose that we turn the child care element on its head. The initial move in what we might call the slide into work should be reimbursed at 100%. When people make the difficult first choice to go into work, the first few hours of child care, perhaps up to the earnings disregard—I ask the Minister to ask the Department to consider some of the maths involved—should be reimbursed at 100% as they make that important transition. When they reach the level of annual earnings represented by the disregards that we are talking about, the tapering of the contribution that the person in work would make to their child care would begin.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady has obviously given this matter very careful thought, and I have great respect for the way in which she is approaching it. Does she not see a risk that the mini-job would become a trap, and it would be impossible for people to be incentivised financially to increase either their earnings or their hours of work, because they would start to lose child care support?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady underestimates the extent to which the 16-hour job has already become a trap. I think we all know people who have been trapped in one. I am proposing that when people move on to that slide and have greater support in those initial steps into work, they will become much more familiar with the world of work. When they move into taking on more hours and so on—let us not forget that once somebody has moved into the workplace they often find themselves eligible for a promotion or for the next move up the employment ladder, which might coincide with their children rising five and going to primary school—the fact that they are on more of a slide will mean that because they have extra work they will be able to share more of the cost of their child care. I would like to see some experimentation with the formula so that the child care support for the first steps into work is more generous, and the tapering begins further down the line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My point is that we should try to concentrate the support that the taxpayer gives into the early hours of going back into work. I would like the taper, and what can be afforded, to be announced annually by the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box, just like the overall taper in universal credit. The country’s potential to support people in those choices would go along those lines.

My second point about the alternatives to new clause 2 that the Department might consider concerns the need to recognise that the cost of child care varies greatly with the age of the child—although I acknowledge this goes somewhat against the simplicity of universal credit. Of course when children go to school the cost of child care out of hours drops dramatically from the cost of providing child care for an 18-month-old child. I suggest some form of annual review of child care support that takes into account the age of the child or children. We should also consider this in terms of the annual envelope, because that would address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the predictable fact that holiday cover is an annual challenge for working parents, and reflect the fact that there is that fluctuation for parents of children at school.

I wanted to outline why I do not agree with new clause 2 and why I welcome the fact that the Government are having an open dialogue about the £2 billion that they are putting into child care support, and to emphasise that all families, whether they are on universal credit or not in the benefit system at all, have to make behavioural and financial choices about the world of work. I would like the support that the state gives to encourage people into work to be concentrated on those first few hours of child care.

[Kate Green]

I want to comment first on the proposed child care amendments. Owing to the funding envelope within which we work we face a difficult financial choice about which group of parents to assist with child care costs. I warmly welcome the implication in the comments of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). Obviously, one would want to support funding for child care as far as possible, and in making an early selection about which group of parents should benefit we do not want to shut off the possibility of financial support for child care for more parents being an aspiration over time.

In saying that we wish to protect the child care support available for parents who work more than 16 hours, we are certainly not saying that we might not aspire in due course to see child care supported beyond that. The loss of financial support for child care will make working completely unviable and will be a dangerous and retrograde step that I do not believe Ministers have fully analysed.

It is important that we do not see child care provision simply as instrumentalising the return of parents to paid employment. Nowhere in the debate today have we said much about the welfare of the child. We do not know what short hours child care, if any, will be available in the child care market. It certainly seems to be a complicated and unlikely form of child care for parents to be able to access and it does not reflect the way in which child care provision is currently organised. Of course, child care providers might respond if more parents were seeking to buy shorter hours of child care, but the question that arises is whether it is a financially viable model for providers. I am not aware of Ministers investigating that, and I would feel more reassured about the validity of their proposals if they had been able to say a little more about what they meant for the market, its resilience and its potential for growth.

I would also have felt more reassured if Ministers had analysed the extent to which very short episodes of child care are or are not good for children. I genuinely do not know the answer, but I have a sense that putting a child in child care for two or three hours on two or three days a week presents an unstable stop-go approach. We certainly know that, for younger children, one-on-one care with a single main carer with whom the child can form a stable relationship is very important. Although I do not rule out the possibility that shorter episodes of child care could be good for children, I have not seen any sign that Ministers have investigated whether that is the case. It is extremely difficult for us to support a measure that has given no attention to the well-being of children.

On the proposals—or lack of proposals—in relation to free school meals, I do not blame Ministers for seeking to pass the problem to the Social Security Advisory Committee because it is an extremely difficult one to solve. The previous Government had been concerned about the cliff edge that exists as parents move off benefits and into employment and free school meals are removed wholesale. Parents have repeatedly told us as politicians that that is an incredible financial shock to low-income families as parents move into work. We have no idea what Ministers will propose in due course.

We have been struggling to find the model that will work. Models have been bandied around that could leave parents able to afford school meals on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but not on Thursday or Friday, or that might mean that they can afford school meals for some children in the family, but not for others. There is a real concern that what Ministers propose will still lead us to a cliff edge.

We need to be clear about the principles that we seek to achieve. I would like absolute clarity from Ministers that when they receive the recommendations and advice of SSAC, they will ensure that support is available for all children who need free school meals; that the system that is put in place will be simple for families, simple for schools to administer and simple for the Government, too; that child health will not be compromised because children currently eligible for free school meals and therefore accessing a healthier diet are in future shut out of such provision; and that the design of the system will not create work disincentives.

I have not yet seen any evidence that all those circles can easily be squared, unless Ministers are prepared to look again at the direction of travel that the Labour Government were following, which was, over time, to move towards extending the reach of free school meals. I accept that in the present financial climate it will be difficult to get all the way there, but Ministers need to think now about how they design the cliff edges and the tapers, because that is the foundation on which a future extension of free school meals to more children would be built.

The most comprehensive option would be to include a per child school meal element in the universal credit, which crucially would be paid directly to schools to provide meals, so that parents were not—by force, in many cases—obliged to use the money to meet other bills. I would like us to consider how a model could be designed that, when funding allows, would allow the money to be paid in full until the family reached their earnings disregard level, at which stage it would be withdrawn from universal credit at the taper rate, which we would like to have been maintained at 65%. That would mean that both DWP and families were contributing to the cost of school meal expansion. Entitlement could end when universal credit payments end, preferably when the imputed value of the school meal had been fully tapered out.

Achieving that vision immediately would undoubtedly create additional cost, which I recognise that Ministers want to avoid. Nevertheless, it is important that they give us assurances that they will seek at the outset to design a system that could be developed in that direction over time and as funding allows.

Amendment 68 relates to carers. A small group of carers seems to have slipped the notice of Ministers when considering the impact of the design of universal credit, specifically in relation to earnings disregards. We know that many carers can work only a very small number of hours because they are seeking to balance paid employment with substantial caring responsibilities. We also know that those few hours of work are very precious to them. They enable them to maintain contact with the labour market, they widen their social and external circles, and they provide a bit of a respite for the carers from the stress and strain of caring.

Where those carers are in receipt of income support, they can at present earn up to £20 a week from doing a few hours of paid employment without it affecting their benefit. In their proposals for universal credit, Ministers have provided for disregards for carers in a number of situations, but there seem to be some groups who will lose the benefit of that disregard as a result of the proposals before us. For example, some carers are caring for someone who does not live in the same home as the carer. Those carers may no longer enjoy the benefit of the earnings disregard. That seems completely at odds with the aspiration that Ministers have expressed for the universal credit, which is that every additional hour of work will pay.

I hope that Ministers will give careful attention to amendment 68 and consider what can be done to ensure that all carers are incentivised to take on even a few hours of work. What assessment have Ministers made of the number of carers who are left outside the ambit of the current disregard for carers, and of the cost of extending such support to all carers?

Finally, we cannot stress often enough how important it is that we ensure that payments for children go to the main carer of the child. Ministers seem to think it is good enough that couples have the option to make that decision, but very many families will, by default, allow all payments of universal credit to go to one member of a couple in a couple household, and we know from the evidence of the way in which the pension credit has been received in couple households that that is most likely to be the man.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will, but the hon. Gentleman will tell me that life is different now and that families share child-caring responsibilities more equally. I am sorry to tell him that although I would love that to be the case, all the research evidence says that it still is not. This is not in any event a gender point, although it would mean more money for women, because women are the main carers of children. Therefore, if we want to ensure that money is spent on children, we need to route it to the main carers, and that primarily means that we need to route it to women in couples.

I am surprised that the Conservative party has been so reluctant to accept that. The last time we had such an attack on the principle of money being paid to mothers for the care of children, it was Conservative ladies who were the best defenders of the interests of mothers and families, and I do not think the picture has changed that much. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an idealistic and ambitious view on the issue, and it would be good to hear it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous introduction to my intervention. I take issue with her argument not in relation to who has primary responsibility for child care, but in relation to culture. In times gone by there was a much more divided culture, which is why older people see life very much in the way she puts it, but the reality is that joint working has changed that. My issue is not about economic power and management, but about sharing in the family unit as a whole, and that is backed up by the figures, which show that 76% of partnered mothers are working. Life has changed, and she should understand that the economics are much more shared these days than they used to be.

[Kate Green]

I am prepared to accept that life is changing, albeit rather more slowly than the hon. Gentleman suggests, but let us not forget that the partnered mothers who work do so largely in part-time jobs and that their incomes usually make the smaller contribution to family budgets. Let us not forget the extensive evidence that continues to show that women fulfil the bulk of child care responsibilities. Let us not take the risk that by removing money from the main carers of children, whether that is the fundamental intention or not, children become the losers in the drive to achieve the glowing future that the hon. Gentleman seeks to describe. All the evidence suggests that money is most likely to be spent on children when it is paid to their main carers, so I am concerned that that should be built into our system as a default to ensure that that is where the money goes.

Other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate and we have had a full discussion on a number of issues raised by the proposed amendments, so I do not need to go into further detail on many of those points, other than to offer my strong support for amendment 26. As we move towards this fundamental change to our social security system, which Ministers themselves have described as the most far reaching since the introduction of the welfare state after the second world war, it is absolutely imperative that, if anything, more welfare advice is available, at least during the transitional period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) has pointed out, because it will surely be needed. Today’s debate is reaffirming the fact that this will not be a simple benefit to administer in practice. If we are to maximise take-up and ensure that people receive their entitlements, which I know from our discussions in Committee is the goal of Ministers, it is vital that proper advice is in place to support people as they navigate their way through the introduction of the new system under the Bill.

[Guto Bebb]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in the debate. Having been here all afternoon, I feel as though I am back in the Bill Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) must again send my apologies to Downing street, because I have decided not to attend a party there in order to be here this evening.

I wish to speak about four specific issues and to new clauses 3 and 4 and amendments 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29. Before doing so, it is important to set today’s good and wide-ranging discussions in context. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who spoke with great knowledge and understanding on these matters in Committee and in her contribution to the House today, but an important point that we must bear in mind is this: the reason we need to look at changing the current welfare system is that it has not worked.

I challenged the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on the figures for the number of people in the United Kingdom who have never worked, which worsened from 2000 to 2010, and the figures I quoted for Scotland were supplied by the Office for National Statistics. The figures for the United Kingdom are absolutely deplorable. The number of people who have never worked increased from 572,000 in 2000 to 841,000 in 2010, when the previous Government left office. As a Member who represents a Welsh constituency, it is disappointing to state that the figures in Wales also show a deterioration. The context for the welfare reform package, therefore, is the fact that the current system is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

That is a reasonable option to allow people to take, but I seriously doubt whether it is an answer to the problem, for a whole host of reasons. In particular, there is a striking imbalance between where the social housing occupation is and where the demand for private rented accommodation is.

Many things worry me about what the Minister has just said, because here we are on Report, months after an impact assessment set out what the proposals are likely to mean, and suddenly an option as to how the Government think that the penalty might be avoided is thrown in. Let us sit down and have a proper impact assessment—a proper review. Let us see, for example, how any income from rental would be treated in the benefits system, because that could become subject to the same rules as non-dependant deduction, which would not leave people better off at all. Before the Minister asks me to regard it as a serious option, let us see exactly how it would be workable as regards the match between demand and supply and how it would be treated for the purposes of tax and other benefits.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a likelihood that from time to time, at least, if not constantly, disabled people may need extra space to accommodate overnight care? Therefore, the prospect of a tenant—a stranger, possibly—moving into their home would be completely impractical as well as potentially rather alarming.

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right; my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am not going to say that just because someone is in a social tenancy they would not be able to have somebody else living in their home. People make that decision in the private sector; morally, it is not a completely absurd thing to do. However, I do not know whether it deals with the problem in any meaningful sense or what all the implications will be.

People with disabilities are, by definition, much more likely to have formal or informal care or to want the capacity to have friends and relatives coming in to provide them with care. Yet we know from the Government’s impact assessment that 66% of all those affected by the cut in benefit in the social housing sector are categorised as disabled—not all severely disabled; I understand that—and that between 101,000 and 108,000 of those properties, depending on which definition one accepts, are specifically adapted for their needs. In Committee, the Minister made some reassuring noises about the problem. She told us that the Government were prepared to

“look in detail at how we can ensure that there are exemptions for individuals who are disabled, where their homes may have been subject to extensive adaptations to accommodate that."

However, earlier in the debate she had told us:

“Providing an exemption for all adapted accommodation would not be the right approach”

and that exemptions should be applied only where making a fresh adaptation would cost more than

“allowing someone to stay where they are.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 685-716.]

That prompts several important questions about the sheer level of bureaucracy that will be necessary to send somebody into every single one of those 108,000 adapted properties to carry out an official survey to establish the extent of those adaptations and come up with a cost-benefit analysis to see whether a move to alternative property will produce a cost benefit, and if it does not to assess the margin of error. If an adaptation would cost £10,000, but it was deemed that the cost saving would be £9,500, would the person with the disability be expected to move from their flat? Would the difference be £1 or £20? This is one of those counter-arguments that sounds seductively simple until one starts picking away at it and finds that it does not sound very good at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the very unfortunate incident in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I cannot comment specifically on that investigation, but I can assure him that the HSE is investigating carefully what happened. Clearly, lessons must be learned. However, that underlines my view that the HSE should concentrate its resources on dealing with genuinely serious incidents and problems, and not on trivial matters.

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

9. What his policy is on the couple penalty in the benefit system.

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

The Government are committed to reducing disincentives in the benefit system. The universal credit provides an enhanced earnings disregard for couples which, along with the taper, will help low-income couples to keep more of their earnings in work. Obviously, over time, it is our intention to work further to reduce the penalty.

[Kate Green]

A widow and a widower each with two children who form a new couple relationship and decide to live together could be £9,000 worse off as a result of the proposed benefits cap. Given reports over the weekend of confusion among Ministers on the fate of the benefits cap, will the Secretary of State assure us that such a couple would not face a couple penalty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Clearly, we do not, as the hon. Lady makes out, want to make anybody face any further induced couple penalties. Our plan is to ensure—over a period of time, but particularly in this Parliament—that we work to erode the couple penalty. However, it is worth reminding her specifically what happened under the previous Government, because the baseline that we have accepted is important. The OECD pointed out that a couple needed about 75% of the income of two single people, but the previous Government left them only 60% of those earnings. In other words, the previous Government took far more from couples than most other countries did. That is why we are in difficulty. She should reflect on that when she asks such questions.

Welfare Reform Bill (Instruction)

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I very much look forward to a full debate on the merits of the Government’s proposal in the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill if the instruction is agreed to. However, I cannot wholly share the Minister’s reasoning on why it is appropriate to approach the expansion of the child poverty commission’s remit in this way.

The Minister said that allocating an advisory role to an arm’s length body would in some way weaken the Government’s accountability. I am confused about why advising should mean becoming responsible, and no doubt she will want to explain that. However, I welcome her acknowledgment of the importance of wide consultation. I hope that that will continue to be the case on the subject of the expanded remit that we are discussing.

I believe the Minister is mistaken to think that the planned child poverty commission would have had as limited a remit as she seemed to imply. As she acknowledged, the 2010 Act and the functions and remit of the commission had cross-party support, and the Act uses a wide understanding of what child poverty encompasses. That includes a number of the building blocks of social mobility, including on parenting, housing and education, that she seems to suggest would be missed. I hope that she can assure us that when the debate is passed on to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, with its much narrower remit of considering employment and social security reforms, the vital focus on child well-being in its broadest sense will not be lost. That is what child poverty measures are fundamentally intended to address and improve.

I agree with the Minister that two central thrusts of the Government’s welfare reform agenda lie at the heart of our ambitions on social mobility. She is right that parental employment is crucial to how we tackle and address child poverty. Unless parents can access employment that genuinely lifts them and their children out of poverty, the child poverty targets cannot be met. She is right, too, to say that the Welfare Reform Bill is an appropriate vehicle for the discussion of child poverty. It is clear that neither child poverty nor social mobility can be addressed unless the right financial support is put in place for families with children. That includes the social security support that the Bill targets directly.

The reason I mention those two points is that there is considerable international evidence that parental earnings have as much impact on social mobility as other factors such as educational opportunity, and that the most socially mobile and equal countries are those with generous, albeit short-term, social security benefits. That is in striking contrast to the position that tends to pertain in this country and the United States, which is very ungenerous social security benefits that people rely on, in many cases, for quite a long time. It is therefore right that we should debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill. In that sense, the Minister’s proposition absolutely stands up. However, this debate also gives us the opportunity to highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Government’s agenda.

The meat of the Welfare Reform Bill includes issues such as the benefits cap, which will seriously damage families’ well-being, and the reduction in support for child care—we are still waiting in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee to see exactly what the Government will propose, although I think that the Opposition will have concerns about it—as well as access to the labour market for second earners or potential earners in couples and the disincentives that seem to be emerging in the design of the universal credit. They are all issues crucial to child poverty and social mobility, and it is right that they should lie at the heart of the Bill.

In conclusion, it is right to debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, albeit not just in that context. Doing so gives us an opportunity to remind ourselves that we tackle poverty, inequality and social fluidity not by individualising and pathologising problems, but through the structural solutions that only Governments can provide. Those solutions include ensuring access to education and training, ensuring that parents can access good quality child care, ensuring income adequacy, ensuring the redistribution of income and wealth to reduce the inequality gap, and ensuring the conditions for sustainable, good quality employment that genuinely enables parents to lift their families out of poverty.

The Government need to be aware that they have at least the beginnings of a credibility problem with those outside this House who are watching and monitoring closely their commitment genuinely to improving the well-being of children and lifting them out of poverty, as the coalition parties, in common with all other parties, last year signed up to do. I very much hope that what we are seeing this evening is not a proposition to marginalise or downplay hard-won gains in securing understanding of the inter-connectedness of poverty, inequality and social fluidity, and, at their heart, the importance of family incomes.