Personal Independence Payments

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

Today’s urgent question was specifically about the cases of AN and JM, on which I have given a decision. For the purposes of clarity, it was not to continue with the court case. Any other issues that the hon. Lady raised are separate, and the question of whether we move on and do other things is not for discussion today. There is a further case under way, and I am sure Mr Speaker would agree that it would be incorrect for me to discuss an ongoing legal case, so I cannot do so. However, for the claimants on whose claims this urgent question was granted, I have, for the sake of clarity, withdrawn the appeal.

We are talking separately about the mobility issue, on which I have given regular updates to the House. We have been working with stakeholders to create new guidance, and we have consulted claimants and stakeholders. We seem to be on schedule for the first payment to go out to them at the start of the summer.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I have written to her about a number of complaints that I have received from constituents about PIP. While it may not be completely on point with the question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I would respectfully say to the Secretary of State that my concern is not about PIP, which is a very good benefit, but about Capita in my area and the assessments. I have a constituent with a severe brain injury, who is receiving DLA and other benefits. He was assessed for PIP and got a zero. He then went through the process and, rightly so, got the full amount. I would be happy to discuss that with my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, but we need to look at the assessments.

[Ms McVey]

I will of course meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this. Over 3 million people have gone for PIP assessments, and while there have been appeals by 9% of them, 4% of those have been overturned. The vast majority of people are receiving awards, and under PIP rather than DLA far more people are receiving higher awards. Under this Government, from 2010 right the way through to 2022, more money will go to disabled people in need than under DLA in 2010. As I said, I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend.

Universal Credit

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

The measures that we are debating expose what has been happening to our country since 2010. In the name of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility, the Tories have allowed the poorest and most vulnerable to become poorer and even more vulnerable. A Prime Minister who once courageously warned her own party that it was perceived by too many as the nasty party is presiding over a Government who have a cavalier disregard for social justice and the poverty that shames our country.

It is true that in the aftermath of a global financial crisis, any UK Government would have had to make tough choices, striking the right balance between spending cuts, tax increases and investment in growth. However, the reality is that too often they have made the wrong choices—choices motivated by an ideological project to wither the state, irrespective of its impact on local communities, the poorest in our society and growth.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman just remind us all that a note had been left by a member of his Government that said, quite properly, there was no money left? Not only have this Government restored our economy, but in so doing they have absolutely protected the very people that matter to all of us. This is tribal nonsense.

[Mr Lewis]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady, but to claim that the financial crisis was anything other than a consequence of a crash that started on Wall Street is the biggest distortion of history that we listen to in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history. The fact is that if the Labour Government had fixed the roof when the sun was shining, when that crisis came along they could have weathered the storm. That is what this responsible Government have been doing since 2010.

[Mr Lewis]

The right hon. Lady’s party wanted us to regulate the banks and the financial services sector less than under the regulatory system we had in place. It committed to matching our spending and borrowing and did not want us to rescue the banks. Imagine if that prescription had been followed at the time we were dealing with the financial crisis.

The Government’s choices are motivated by an ideological project to wither the state, irrespective of its impact. Their disproportionate cuts have choked off growth and destroyed too much of our social fabric. Their tax changes have failed dismally to tackle tax avoidance or to ensure that, in tough times, those with the most carry the greatest burden. Their failure to invest in infrastructure, skills and jobs has led to economic growth that is anaemic compared with similar economies. The Government’s own assessments predict that this economic failure will be made even worse by the uncertainty and instability that are the inevitable consequences of Brexit.

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will agree with me on this point: history will record that the referendum was nothing to do with the national interest or giving voice to the will of the people. It was David Cameron’s fix for managing the Tory party through a general election.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lewis]

I am not giving way again to the right hon. Lady. Far from being the party of economic competence, hers is the party of economic chaos.

To be clear, the policies we are opposing today are neither necessary nor acceptable in a civilised society; they are political choices made by this Tory Government. As we have heard in this debate, Tory Members are in denial. Too many of our fellow citizens might as well be living in a different country from the one they describe. The reality for those people is food banks, perpetual debt, a poor quality of life and a lack of hope for themselves and their children. Some, of course, are dependent on benefits, but increasing numbers are people in work on permanent low pay and insecure contracts. This should offend any Member who believes not only in social justice but in the future of mainstream politics. Here and abroad, people who feel left behind by mainstream politics are increasingly turning to anti-establishment nationalism, which spreads hate and division. That is another reason these policies are so irresponsible.

[Mr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. Of course I believe that the result of the referendum must be respected; I question the motive for the referendum in the first place. It was David Cameron’s folly—that is how history will remember him—and was done in the interests of the Conservative party, not those of our country.

[Anna Soubry]

I too have respect—some—for the hon. Gentleman, although it is beginning to wane. I do not want to fall out with him, but I would make one point to him. It is not good enough just to blame it all on David Cameron. The hon. Gentleman, like me and the majority of people in the House, walked through the Lobbies in support of a referendum, and we are now dealing with the consequences. We were all complicit in agreeing that the British people should vote and determine whether we stayed or left.

[Mr Lewis]

I simply say—I think that history will bear this out—that it was done purely to keep the Conservative party together and to get through a general election. It had nothing to do with the national interest and everything to do with the arrogance of the then Prime Minister and Chancellor in believing that they would almost inevitably win such a referendum.

I will turn now to the measures on universal credit and free school meals. The Government could hardly have made more of a mess of universal credit. The National Audit Office stated that the project had suffered from

“weak management, ineffective control and poor governance”.

Is that the responsibility of the current Secretary of State or her predecessor? Perhaps she would like to respond—no? Okay. Cuts to universal credit passed in the last two years have left a majority of families worse off on universal credit than under the system it replaces, and this further reduction in support will add to their financial pain. The proposed threshold could have a negative effect on work incentives and risks creating poverty traps for families on universal credit, which goes completely against the Government’s goal that universal credit should always reward work.

In the 1980s, Tory policies created a deeply divided society. They have learnt nothing from history and are once again fuelling a cycle of intergenerational deprivation that hurts those most affected but which in the end damages us all. I hope the House will today force the Government to rethink these regressive measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I have been texting my team furiously during the debate to check, double check and triple check that what I am about to say is accurate. I asked them to ring the DWP and the Library and then assure me that this is right. The vast majority of my constituents who currently receive tax credits are not on universal credit and will not be migrated on to it for some time, and they will not be protected by transitional arrangements, which will not apply. I have just checked this with the DWP and the Library. This is about the future denial of free schools meals, and it is valid that we have a conversation about that. I am not interested in embellishment in this debate, because the truth is enough.

For people who are in work and in poverty, or looking for work and in poverty, food is a huge part of their expenditure. It is a never-ending struggle to make sure that there is enough to eat, and that children are getting enough to keep them healthy and well. Children cannot concentrate in school when they are hungry—we all know the arguments. For many young people, that one hot meal is all they will get. I have not been told, despite the claim being repeated time and again, what calculation was used to reach the figure of 50,000 for the number of extra children who will get free school meals. I am sorry, but I am just not able to believe that on a whim, or on a calculation that was plucked out of thin air.

Under the current system, families are normally entitled to free school meals if their income is under £16,190. That will be changed to £7,400 per year, unless it is covered by transitional protections. The reduction to £7,400 is, frankly, delusional. Who will it help? What is the figure based on? Which advisers, experts or charitable organisations have the Government met who actually think that slashing the threshold is a good idea for children in low-income households? The BBC rang around headteachers to try to get a quote on these changes, but not one headteacher knew about them, so what consultation has there been with schools?

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

Time is very short, so I am certainly not going to give way to somebody who has intervened many times and was not here for the start of the debate.

Nearly 2,000 children in my constituency quite rightly—

[Anna Soubry]

Just for the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was in this place when the debate started.

[Laura Pidcock]

Well, that was not my experience. Anyway, the idea that claimants in my area—[Interruption.]

Universal Credit Roll-out

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the First Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2017-19, Universal Credit: the six week wait, HC 336; and calls on the Government to reduce the standard initial wait for a first Universal Credit payment to one month.

Some of us would not wish to use “roll-out” as an appropriate name for what is happening to universal credit in our constituencies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic, which affects a growing number of constituents. For my constituents, the horror of the full roll-out of universal credit happened yesterday.

I begin by confessing my inadequacies. When we debate in this great place I am sure most, if not all, of us reflect on how we simply do not have the language to match the task of presenting to the nation, through this Chamber, what is happening. This is the most important debate I have participated in during my nearly 40 years as the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. I have never felt more acutely the inadequacy of the language I have to try to tell the House of the horror that is now happening to a growing number of my constituents under this so-called welfare reform programme.

So long as I do not get lots of interventions, as I did last Tuesday, I promise to speak briefly on five brief themes: first, the horrors under the existing roll-out of universal credit, before the full roll-out; secondly, the organised chaos that now presents itself in my constituency; thirdly, the national impact of what will be a growing crash and smash in many decent, honourable people’s lives; fourthly, the one reform on which all members of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions agree—this will not be our only report, but given the evidence, and we want to report to the House on the evidence, not on what we think or feel, the biggest change the Government could make is to reduce the initial wait from six weeks to four weeks—and finally, the long-term reforms.

When I saw the Minister at the coffee machine yesterday and he kindly told me that he would reply to the debate, I said that I had already asked the question four times. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not here today, because he has no more important task. However much affection we have for the Minister of State for the seriousness with which he has gone about his career in this House, this issue is of such national importance that for the Secretary of State not to be here says something pretty big.

I have now asked the question five times. The Secretary of State tells me, “Go back home and say it’s all hunky-dory. You don’t have to worry. It’s all going to be rolled out fine.” And I say, “The food bank says we need 15 tonnes more food.” Who are we to believe?

This case began some time ago, but a person who is involved turned to their MP for help yesterday, the day of the full roll-out. It is an historical case of a gentleman who had waited and waited for an operation at our local hospital. That operation took place at the same time as he was told to turn up for an interview at our Jobcentre Plus. He was sanctioned. A friend reported yesterday that this constituent of mine is now homeless and, while homeless, struggling to recover from the surgery.

I will now give five examples of the horrors that are happening in Birkenhead under the existing system. We were told the system would be simplified and manageable. These five cases have come into one MP’s surgery. I do not want to speak for terribly long, but I could raise yards of cases—we could all raise yards of cases—of what is actually happening to our constituents.

Constituent No. 1 made three applications online. When they finally got through, they were told that no application had been received. They were paid six weeks after the third application. The constituent has three children to feed, and they were hungry.

Constituent No. 2 had twice attempted to apply online, and twice the application had been lost. They waited a further eight weeks before receiving money. They were hungry.

Constituent No. 3, who has a four-year-old daughter, waited two months for universal credit to be processed and tried the hotline six times, but was told that a new system was in place—it took several days before they phoned her back. She was then told, “No claim could be found.” Wow! Her payment date was pushed back by a further 11 days. My constituent and her daughter went hungry.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

These are heartbreaking and unacceptable accounts, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help me. When I met the citizens advice bureau in Broxtowe, where we had UC being rolled out in July, I was told that it is now making the arrangements with all relevant authorities so that these very examples do not exist. My question to the right hon. Gentleman is: did these constituents come to him at the end of this ghastly process or earlier? If they had come earlier, they would find that we as MPs all have exactly the access to speed it up. Does he agree that we should be doing this now before it comes out in our areas?

[Frank Field]

I could not agree more, although I have been here a little longer than the right hon. Lady and I never thought that as an MP I would be speaking like this, about this, with my job being adapted in this way. Of course we have had summits, and we are continuing to have them, bringing all the people together, including Jobcentre Plus, to try to prevent these things from happening. Despite those efforts, these are the cases of horror that are resulting and that I am presenting to the House.

Constituent No. 4 waited 12 months for universal credit. The Secretary of State, bless him, not here today, admitted that some error had occurred. My constituent is sinking in debt, despite the role of citizens advice bureaux, MPs, food banks, and getting welfare rights advisers in—despite all that. Constituent No. 5 was migrated from housing benefit to UC, with their housing benefit stopped immediately. They then waited seven weeks for UC, but when it came there was no housing component. Again, this constituent risks being evicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his maiden speech. He is still to be persuaded on the merits of Scottish independence, and I look forward to debating them with him in the next few years. I thank him for paying a generous tribute to his predecessor, Eilidh Whiteford; I am sure that all Scottish National party Members appreciate that.

As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, let me start by saying that Glasgow is a city where words often have more than one meaning, and in attempting to sum up this Government’s approach to social security benefits and universal credit, I would use the word “ignorant”. Now, Government Members may not agree with that characterisation. They may even point out that the architect of universal credit, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), made a point of visiting Easterhouse in Glasgow in 2002. But, of course, the Government are closing the jobcentre in Easterhouse this year.

[Anna Soubry]

I was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when we discussed the situation of the Glasgow jobcentres. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Glasgow had somewhere in the region of 16 jobcentres and that the DWP’s very excellent proposal—in fact, it was not radical enough, in my view—was to reduce that number to eight? We compared the number of jobcentres in comparable cities in other parts of the country that had comparable employment rates, and they often had two or three jobcentres, as opposed to eight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order! Too long; far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to have heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), and to follow other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) who opened the debate.

No one could object to universal credit’s ambitions to simplify the benefit systems, to smooth the passage into work, to make work pay and to reduce poverty, but so much has gone wrong in practice that it is hard to know where to start. The problems we are seeing are not just because of poor implementation; the problems have been designed in from the outset, despite repeated warnings from Opposition Members since 2011 that the programme was too ambitious, too risky, too complicated, too reliant on complex IT systems—complex for the claimant and for the Government—and did not go with the grain of people’s lives.

Let us start with the six-week wait. It is based on the assumption—I might go so far as to call it the prejudice—that the right and normal way for people to receive their income is to do so every month. That is not the case for many low-paid workers, as we know. It is also based on the assumption, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) mentioned, that people have savings in the bank. Hon. Members should ask themselves whether they could manage if their income suddenly dried up for six weeks or more, especially if it was the result of an unexpected and catastrophic event—losing their job, a partner leaving, their child becoming ill, or having an accident and not being able to go to work. It is unforgivable to put extra pressure on people on the lowest incomes in those circumstances. The six-week wait must be reduced. I recognise that exceptions can be made, but it is not clear that the system is working when such exceptions should be made. My constituent B, who was fleeing domestic violence, was told that she would not have to wait for the six weeks, but she still had no money after two weeks.

That leads me on to the problems with advance payments. My constituent K was not told until her third interview with Jobcentre Plus that such payments were available, and she did secure an advance payment. However, the repayment rate is punitively high, especially when it is combined with the recovery of other debts, such as those relating to council tax or utilities, and payments imposed by magistrates courts. Under universal credit, that can mean deductions of up to 40%, leaving claimants with insufficient money to live on. As a result, one lone parent in my constituency was left with just £100.67 per week to pay all her bills, which is £110 per month less than on the legacy benefit. How can that be right?

Such problems are creating debts and rent arrears: 80% of Trafford Housing Trust customers on universal credit are in rent arrears. The collection rate for arrears of under three months is 79.3%. Although the figure is much higher for arrears of over three months, at 96.4%, that is because mistakes in paying people’s benefit have largely been sorted out by that point or because they have debt relief orders in place. That is not because they have adapted to universal credit, but because other things are kicking in.

The problems are compounded by a complete lack of understanding in Jobcentre Plus about alternative payment arrangements—in other words, paying the rent directly to landlords. Trafford Housing Trust staff have told me that Jobcentre Plus staff do not understand this, will not talk to them about it, make mistakes in the calculations and make payments to claimants that should not be made to them but which are then promptly swallowed up by the bank and other creditors. In one case, an alternative payment arrangement was refused because the debt was deemed to be one of less than eight weeks when that was not the case. This reflected the fact that Jobcentre Plus calculate the claims over a 52-week period, whereas Trafford Housing Trust work out claims over a 48-week period.

[Anna Soubry]

Broxtowe CAB has told me that it is concerned about people who are on fluctuating hours, and those fluctuations and the lack of good co-ordination with HMRC are causing real problems for people on low wages who are in receipt of UC.

[Kate Green]

I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has raised that issue because it brings me neatly to my next point, which is about the particular problems that arise with the assessment period.

My constituent S received two lots of wages in one assessment period. Similarly, we can see how those with fluctuating incomes will have different levels of payments in different assessment periods. As a result, her universal credit was calculated as zero in the month she received two payments. In the following month, she received nothing in income, but by that time her claim had been cancelled. When the benefit was introduced, we were told that HMRC’s use of real-time information would sort out this kind of problem, but it did not do so. The failure was that of her employer to upload the data in time. The use of real-time information was a complete irrelevance, because the data were not in the system at all. In other cases, constituents who have been paid early—for example, because their employer provided an advance of pay before the Christmas break—have lost their award and their claim has been stopped. None of that is the fault of the claimant, but the DWP is utterly inflexible in its application of the assessment periods. What are Ministers doing about this? I am now being told that S’s case could actually have been treated more flexibly, but I was not told that when I first wrote to the DWP. It is now completely unclear to me and, more to the point, to my constituents what the position is on these problems.

Finally, I want to say something about the problems when claimants migrate from ESA to universal credit. In that circumstance, if they request mandatory reconsideration and then go to a tribunal, they will find that their ESA claim is cancelled. Even if they win their tribunal claim, it cannot be reinstated, and they are forced to remain on UC. My understanding is that that was not Ministers’ initial intention. Claimants are not being told, when a tribunal case starts, that they can have their ESA claim reinstated. In his summing up, will the Minister also address that point? This is putting further pressure on sick and disabled claimants who ought to be getting decent support from the benefit systems, but are not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I come back to this throwing around of accusations. We had the Leader of the Opposition claiming that 650 people had been evicted because of universal credit. We are not seeing evictions in the social rented sector and there are clear reasons why that does not happen. What we are getting for potential universal credit claimants from the Labour party is scaremongering, which is creating unnecessary anxiety.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Broxtowe citizens advice bureau, which I met on Thursday? Universal credit is being rolled out for us next year, and the CAB is already putting together all the relevant agencies to make sure that we are ready. Will my right hon. Friend also have a look at whether, for a very small amount, my CAB could have one person to deal with all the cases so that we can make this system work as we all know it should?

[Mr Gauke]

I will take that as a spending bid from my right hon. Friend. She is right to highlight the role of citizens advice bureaux. I met citizens advice bureaux in St Albans and Bedford last week, and where a CAB works closely with jobcentres, it helps to deliver the support that people need, which I very much welcome.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The issue of how we encourage more people into work and ensure that those who are not in work have a decent standard of living is an important one and is worthy of debate. It is valuable to debate not only the principle behind universal credit and the Government’s formulation of the policy, but, given that a further roll-out is due shortly, whether there should be a further pause to resolve and discuss issues such as the timing of payments before the roll-out is extended.

Both of those are legitimate concerns, but the difficulty with the motion and the debate last week was that those two issues were conflated. On the face of it, the motion before the House purported to raise the second issue—namely, whether there should be a pause, and a pause alone. A pause is a temporary or brief interruption, after which service will resume. However, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), in speaking in support of the motion, went far beyond arguing for a pause and instead identified fundamental weaknesses, as she saw it, in universal credit. She identified no fewer than 11 individual amendments she wanted to see. She quoted the charity Gingerbread as saying that the errors in the administration and structure of the system itself needed addressing. She concluded by saying:

“We cannot allow the devastating impacts of universal credit roll-out to happen.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 865.]

Those points are important, because when the Opposition bring an Opposition day motion before the House on an important point that affects the lives of our constituents, it is important that we as MPs know what we are voting on. When the Labour party put that motion before the House, did it intend to request a short and temporary pause to universal credit, or was it asking significant questions about the operation of universal credit? My concern is that, in that motion, the Opposition were playing politics and would have sought to use how we voted on it. If the Government had voted in favour of the motion, it would be open to the Opposition to say the Government agreed with the wider issues in universal credit outlined by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. If the Government had voted against the motion, the Opposition would say the Government were not even willing to agree to a short-term, temporary measure to fix administrative issues with universal credit.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition’s motion would have had more credibility if it had included the word “fix”? There was no mention of that. It was simply about a pause.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the reality. This is not an abstract discussion; we are discussing real people’s lives.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Thanks to a Conservative Government, we now have almost full employment in this country. For a number of people who claim unemployment benefits, their mental health is a barrier to getting work. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give us that the universal credit system will either help people with low-level mental health conditions to get back into work, or give them the support they need for their future?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I was about to give an illustration of the way universal credit can work involving a claimant with learning difficulties, who was out of work when he came to the jobcentre. His work coach provided tailored support, building his confidence and capability. That man is now in work. He told us that he is proud of himself for getting into work, and that he did not think it would have been possible without universal credit. He is now looking forward to the future. That personalised support, tailored to individual circumstances, is much more widely available.

Let me give another example. A university graduate had not previously had a job but was desperate to get into work. Her work coach helped to build her skills—interview skills and application writing—and she was soon successful in gaining a 16-hours a week job. When she was offered overtime, the work coach supported the claimant flexibly, rescheduling her Jobcentre Plus appointments so they did not clash with her new hours. The claimant could accept the overtime, confident that she would remain on universal credit and continue to be supported by her work coach.

Those are true testimonies of the powerful potential of the reform to change lives for the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will come to that. The hon. Gentleman should not worry—I will not resile from why I resigned.

Too much of the debate has been based on evidence that is months old, when rectification has taken place and changes have been made. Let me give an example that has not been mentioned. The mistakes in tax credits and housing benefit mean that more than 60% of those coming on to universal credit already carry debt and rent arrears. Universal credit is identifying those people and having to clear up the errors. That is an important point. Before universal credit, too many people were left to get on with their lives and get deeper and deeper in debt.

[Anna Soubry]

My right hon. Friend and I are about the same age. Does he share my concern that anyone who is younger than us and listening to the debate might labour—no pun intended—under the misapprehension that, before the election of a Conservative Government in 2010, the previous system was perfect, when it has been bedevilled by flaws for decades? That is why this simplified system, when all the bumps have been ironed out, is welcome.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has borne the years better than me. However, I will do anything for a kind look—[Laughter.] Particularly from my right hon. Friend.

It is interesting that, in the past 24 hours, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made the following statement:

“Universal credit has the potential to dramatically improve the welfare system, which is fragmented, difficult to navigate and can trap people in poverty.”

It went on to say that the system will help people

“transition into work and will respond better to people’s changing circumstances.”

I agree. It would have been nice if the Opposition had started their debate by being clear and positive about how and why universal credit can change lives.

The point about test, learn and rectify is that it does exactly that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made many points in his excellent speech about the changes that are already beginning to happen. For example, some of the rent arrears are beginning to come down and the portal will help enormously with that.

However, I ask my right hon. Friend about universal support, which is the critical other bit of universal credit that no one has mentioned. It allows us to pick up the pieces around universal credit and deal with them on a human basis. Universal credit flags up when somebody has a debt problem and when they are running into arrears. Universal support is vital to work directly with them, using councils, jobcentres and all the other agencies, and hub up around them to help them change their lives on the basis of knowledge about how to pay their bills, their banking facilities and their debts. I ask for reassurance in the winding-up speech that Ministers will put in the extra effort, focus—and money, when necessary—to ensure that universal support rolls out successfully alongside universal credit. That is critical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would be happy to look at the hon. Lady’s case. We changed the rules on Motability to ensure that people could go to appeal and not lose their car in the meantime. It sounds as if something has gone wrong in this particular case. I cannot make a decision, but I can look at the case and see what we can do to help.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Government for the assistance given to my constituent, who had to leave Dominica because of the terrible damage caused by the hurricane. But on her return back to this country with her 22-month-old son, she has discovered that she is not entitled to any benefits whatever for three months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that we have a right and proper system to make sure that people in such circumstances really are entitled to benefits?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. We will certainly look at it and ensure that she has the opportunity to meet us to discuss it.

Employment Support

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

This is not a savings measure. I know that the hon. Lady is very concerned about this matter on behalf of those of her constituents who work in Remploy factories, but I assure her that we are trying to ensure that the money is used more effectively, so more of her constituents can get the support they need. It simply cannot be right for us to continue to let the factories lose £68 million a year—and cumulatively more than £200 million over the modernisation plan period—when we could be using that money more effectively to support more disabled people into employment.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am concerned about the way this difficult decision will be reported. Will she make it clear that the decision has not been taken in order to cut public expenditure, and that instead more money will be going towards enabling disabled people to live and work independently, free of prejudice, with support, so they can do what they want to do in their lives?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I put the following simple fact to the House: as a result of what we are announcing today, 8,000 more disabled people throughout the country will have the opportunity to move into work, compared with 1,500 people who work in Remploy factories and who will be affected. In these difficult economic times, we have to take tough decisions, but this is a decision that is about much more than that; it is about the sort of country we are—a country that wants to have disabled people included at the heart of our communities instead of in segregated factories.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to have that conversation. We are also working hard with the insurance industry to make sure that we match employees who have suffered from the illness with employers who may have disappeared some years ago, to ensure that we find the employers liability insurance policies that can pay those employees the compensation that they so desperately need.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

My constituent Andrew Taylor relies on the Motability scheme in order that he can work and live independently. His concern is that the personal independence payment thresholds will interfere with that. What assurance can the Minister give him, please?

[Maria Miller]

I entirely understand the importance of mobility and being able to get out and about for disabled people. It is our intention that Motability should continue to be linked to the new PIP scheme. I take my hon. Friend’s comments into account.

Welfare Reform Bill

Anna Soubry Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

As I have rehearsed this afternoon, we simply think that a “one cap fits all” approach is not going to work. The Minister has had to put his hand in his pocket and spend a fortune to fix the problem. He tells us that the Work programme is working well, but the rate at which people are flowing off benefits and into work speaks for itself. It is at its lowest point since 1998. That tells us, I am afraid, that the back-to-work programmes are simply not going to work.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that some people will have to move home. Why does he think that that is unacceptable for the long-term unemployed? Every day, people’s circumstances change. They might lose their job, their marriage or their relationship, and those circumstances mean that they have to move home. Why should the long-term—often third generation—unemployed be exempt from the real world that so many people live in?

[Mr Byrne]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point with such force. No one is against people having to move home or to lower-cost areas of accommodation. What people are worried about is 21,000 families being made homeless, local councils having to pick up the bill for that, and that bill having to be paid for by council tax payers such as hers. What conversations has she had with her constituents about how much their council tax bill is going to go up because there is a new bill for homelessness to pay?

[Anna Soubry]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, following conversations with my constituents in Broxtowe, that hard-working people overwhelmingly take the view that the long-term unemployed should no longer be better off on benefit than in work. That is not only for the sake of the public purse; it is a result of the compassion that we feel—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh; they should know better. In the real world, some of the people I used to represent as a criminal barrister were third-generation unemployed. It is for their sake and that of their children that they should be back in work, and that is what these measures have at their heart.

[Mr Byrne]

They should be back in work, which is why we are so angry that unemployment is set to rise, rise and rise again over the course of this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend has highlighted exactly why this particular proposal has been ill thought-out.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I do not want to take up as much time as the Minister. I shall move on to the Child Support Agency—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have made it perfectly clear that I am not giving way: I am moving on to the subject of the CSA.

The Government should never have brought forward this proposal, although I welcome the Minister’s statement today that they have reduced the fee. Why they put everybody through the anxiety of putting a fee—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have not really said anything about the CSA yet, so if the hon. Lady could just be patient—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just make it clear. It is obvious that the shadow Minister is not giving way at the moment. On the Government side, during my time in the Chair since 5.30, there was a preference—on the whole—not to give way to Opposition Members and that is now being replicated by the right hon. Lady. Members may make what they like of that, but there is nothing disorderly about it. It is no good people yelling from a sedentary position to express their frustrations. They must try to contain those frustrations, which I notice the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is now successfully doing.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you for your wise words, Mr Speaker.

We welcome the reduction that the Minister announced today, and for the record, we welcomed in the other place the additional funding of £20 million that was going to be put in to encourage—

[Anna Soubry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you help me? If a Member asks a question of the whole House, how does one respond to that question other than by asking that Member to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is asking me to speculate about a hypothetical. We could probably have a seminar about the matter, and it might be instructive. There could be a time for that, but it is not now. I feel sure that the hon. Lady has raised not a point of order, but a point of disappointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I will not give way at the moment—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, as she was denied earlier.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is as gracious as ever. There is much merit in what he says about a woman who is on benefit chasing a father who is, frankly, not up to scratch. Although £20 is a lot of money for someone in those circumstances who is on benefit, does hon. Friend agree that, if the woman is guaranteed a system that is fit for purpose, there is merit in that small charge being excised on her because eventually she and, most importantly, her children will get what they deserve?

[Andrew Percy]

We all want to achieve a service that is fit for purpose, but I am not sure that the charge is about delivering such a service. It will certainly not cover the cost of so doing. It seems to be more about effecting a cultural change, and I do not believe that charging the mother £20 will effect such a change. It would therefore end up being a tax on the mother who is trying to get money from an errant father. That is why I have a bit of a problem with the principle.