Fraud and Error National Statistics

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

The statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system, for the financial year ending 2022, were published on Thursday 26 May 2022 at 9.30 am. The figures published today confirm the overall rate of fraud and error in 2021-22 was 4.0%, or £8.6 billion. This includes a rate of fraudulent overpayments at 3.0%—£6.5 billion—and a rate of claimant error at 0.7%—£1.5 billion—both of which represent a small but not statistically significant increase. We successfully reduced official error, which has dropped to 0.3%—£0.7 billion. This outcome largely reflects the ongoing situation of covid where some unscrupulous people, including sophisticated organised crime groups, exploited easements we had made to prioritise payments to those who needed help.

We have always been clear that it would take time to root out this fraud. As we said last summer, our expectation for these fraud and error results was that they would be broadly similar to last year as the caseload still contained many cases from the early days of the pandemic. This is still the case. Overall though, we have successfully contained fraud in UC at a time when fraud in society has been increasing, but there is more to do.

That is why we are taking action. Last week, we published our ambitious plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System” to prevent, deter and detect fraudsters and protect taxpayers’ money.

The plan sets out how we will deploy 1,400 more staff in our counter-fraud teams, establish a new 2,000-strong team dedicated to reviewing existing universal credit claims and develop an enhanced data analytics package to prevent and detect fraud. These initiatives are possible thanks to a three-year additional investment of £613 million, which we estimate will stop £2.1 billion of loss in fraud and error over the next three years. The plan also sets out our intention to bring forward new powers, when parliamentary time allows, to investigate potential fraud and punish fraudsters.

Today’s release also includes data on the state pension. The overpayment rate for state pension was 0.1%, the total underpayment rate was 0.5%. This includes very small value uprating errors, the vast majority being 1p or 2p a week. These small errors are the result of an historical issue first identified several decades ago and which has now been recorded in these statistics for the first time. Additionally, a small number of state pension errors have also been identified relating to incorrect national insurance records which are administered by HMRC. DWP is supporting HMRC’s investigations into whether these are isolated cases. We will provide a further update when we have more information.

[HCWS72]

Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

Fraud is an ever-present challenge in both the private and public sector.

Fraud committed against the welfare system—whether by individuals or criminal gangs—is not a victimless crime. It is felt throughout society, upon the services people rely on and by honest, hard-working taxpayers who expect to see public money spent on the purpose for which it was intended, rather than going into the hands of fraudsters.

Our fundamental approach has always been to prevent fraud from entering the system in the first place, to detect and root out fraud when it does, and to deter would-be fraudsters through a robust penalty system, including recovering the debt owed. These principles were bringing fraud down before the pandemic.

During the early months of the pandemic, we took a decision to implement temporary easements to ensure we could prioritise payments to those who needed help during a difficult time. It is regrettable that some unscrupulous people sought to exploit these extraordinary circumstances for their own illegitimate gain.

Later today, I will publish a paper on fighting fraud in the welfare system which sets out our plan to address the challenge of fraud, to stay ahead of evolving threats, and to reduce the levels of fraud and error in the welfare system.

This plan sets out how we are investing £613 million over the next three years in our frontline counter-fraud professionals and in enhanced data analytics. This funds 1,400 more staff in our counter-fraud teams, a new 2,000-strong team dedicated to reviewing existing universal credit claims and an enhanced data analytics package to develop new ways to prevent and detect fraud. We estimate this will stop £2.1 billion of loss in fraud and error over the next three years.

When parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward new powers to investigate potential fraud and punish fraudsters. We will:

Bring the Department in line with counter-fraud functions elsewhere in Government, by creating powers to enable our officers to undertake arrests, and to search and seize evidence.

Bolster our penalty system—creating a new type of civil penalty to ensure that those who commit fraud face punishment.

Create new powers that will require organisations, such as banks, to securely share data on a larger scale to find and prevent fraud.

Establish new powers to improve the Department’s access to information from a wider range of organisations and to assist counter-fraud and compliance activity into all payments made by the Department, modernising our ability to drive fraud out of the system.

Technological advances give fraudsters new opportunities to find ways to attack. To make sure we stay ahead of the fraudsters, we need to bring together the full force of Government and the expertise of the private sector. We are creating a new Fraud Prevention Advisory Group to bring together Government and external experts to identify and develop innovative ways to crack down on fraudsters, including through more flexible and proactive use of data. We will work hand in hand with the new Public Sector Fraud Authority to ensure all of Government step up their efforts to reduce fraud and error and bring fraudsters to justice.

This plan will help us to defend the welfare system against those who seek to take advantage of it. It will allow us to dig deeper in rooting fraud out wherever it occurs in the welfare system, to catch and punish fraudsters and to protect taxpayers’ money.

[HCWS38]

Child Maintenance Service: Reform

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is an honour, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on championing this cause and bringing this debate before us today. She is a recognised and well-respected champion on these matters.

Notwithstanding her strong loyalty to Motherwell and to Wishaw, I am sure she will join me in congratulating Rangers Football Club on their achievements this season which, despite the vagaries of the penalty shoot-out, were magnificent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Rutley]

I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister and, as my constituency takes in Ibrox stadium, I associate myself with his remarks. I inform the House that an early-day motion will be tabled, praising the Rangers team for their achievements in the Europa League this season.

[David Rutley]

I give way to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw.

[Marion Fellows]

I have never said this in public, but my late husband was a Rangers fan, man and boy, and I could feel his presence when I watched the match last night. It was such a sad ending.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon]

I loved the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and, in particular, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I also associate myself with the Minister’s comments. I have been a Rangers supporter since I was a wee boy. Rangers may not have won last night, but they made this great kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland better together. It was a showcase for us all.

[David Rutley]

I agree. Other hon. Members may not quite agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman just said, but I think we can all agree that it was a remarkable achievement.

We can all also agree that this debate is important. Even though my current ministerial brief does not cover this area, it is vitally important. The Child Maintenance Service plays a valuable role in ensuring that children are supported in instances where parents do not live together and where they come to a private arrangement. We know that the vast majority of separated parents quite rightly take their responsibilities extremely seriously, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. Our aim is to help parents to support their children and we are sensitive to the needs of both parties. The CMS is designed to promote collaboration between parents, and it offers a statutory scheme where collaboration is not possible.

The central focus in all of this is that the children are supported. The intent of child maintenance reform is to encourage parents to meet their responsibilities and provide their children with the financial support they need to get a good start in life, and that intent is well supported by the evidence. I will come on to that point in a second.

We are committed to maximising the positive impact of the Child Maintenance Service and ensuring that good arrangements are put in place for children, no matter where they are growing up. As the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, parents need to honour their responsibilities to their children. We believe the CMS has made substantial improvements in the pre-covid period, notwithstanding that there is further room for progress, and the statistics support that. The compliance rate for parents on the collect and pay service has increased significantly, with the percentage of parents paying something rising by eight percentage points between the quarter ending March 2018 and March 2020. From March 2016 to December 2021, the percentage of CMS cases where no maintenance is being paid fell by about 30%, from 46% in March 2016 to 32% in December 2021.

CMS investigators have the power to deduct directly from earnings and to seize funds owed in child maintenance payments where requests for payments are consistently refused. For example, the CMS has the ability to seize funds held by a third party that they owe to the paying parent. Over 800,000 children are now covered by the Child Maintenance Service arrangements, up from 700,000 in mid-2019. We are making a difference to the support that children have been receiving: since 2019, over £1 billion in child maintenance has been arranged each year through the direct pay service and the collect and pay service. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made an important point about poverty. She and I have regular debates on this subject, but it is important to note that around 140,000 fewer children are growing up in poverty as a result of child maintenance payments. That is good progress, but clearly more work needs to be done.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly raised points about the fee for an application to the Child Maintenance Service, which is set at £20 for all CMS participants. That fee is intended to encourage parents to consider whether they really need a statutory scheme case, but it is not so high that it creates an insurmountable obstacle. Applicants who are victims of domestic abuse or under the age of 19 are exempt from paying the application fee. It is not our intent to create a barrier for vulnerable customers; in fact, around 60% of applicants do not pay that fee. Collection charges, which are 20% for the paying parent and 4% for the parent with care, only apply to the collect and pay service, and are intended to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate. The collection charge for the receiving parent is deducted only when maintenance is paid, so the receiving parent does not owe money to the Child Maintenance Service if maintenance is not paid. If there were no charge for receiving parents, there would be no incentive for them to use the direct pay service.

The Child Maintenance Service may also review the income of a paying parent if earnings decrease or increase by 25% over a year—a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. That 25% threshold ensures that liabilities remain stable so that both parents can budget with certainty, which aims to provide ongoing certainty for the child as well.

[Marion Fellows]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will, but can I just make one further point, which I think might answer the hon. Lady’s question? Most people’s income does not change to that degree over the course of one year. The threshold also ensures that minor changes in income do not interfere with the efficiency of the system, thereby increasing costs for the taxpayer. I recognise that there is an important issue here, and I assure hon. Members that DWP Ministers will keep that tolerance under very active review.

[Marion Fellows]

I just wanted to thank the Minister for that, because it is a very important point. I know those changes are not frequent, but they can prevent money from going to children, which is the issue that this debate is all about.

[David Rutley]

I underline for the record that that issue is kept under active review.

Within the CMS, arrears are written off in exceptional circumstances only. With regard to CSA arrears, the Department carried out its compliance and arrears strategic review. Over the course of that review, 250,000 receiving parents were written to, explaining the situation. There are fewer than 60,000 cases remaining with CSA debt, and more than 35,000 of those are undergoing collection and enforcement activity. In instances where the receiving parents ask, the CMS undertakes further action to seek to recover the funds. Crucially, this exercise has allowed the CMS to focus its effort on parents who told us they wanted us to try to collect the money that they are owed and the money that will benefit children now.

We are determined to go further and not content to stand still. We are always looking to improve the way we deliver this vital service. The Department continues to keep child maintenance policy and our operational delivery under review. Those who have met Baroness Stedman-Scott will know that she is also a redoubtable champion on these matters and not somebody to be messed with. She is very keen to drive further action forward.

We are also considering how other countries arrange child maintenance. We are gathering examples of good practice and looking at what can be learned from other systems. This includes researching what interventions are used to encourage parents to make their own maintenance arrangements without Government involvement. The CMS has introduced new digital services such as the apply online service that allows parents to make an initial application more easily. That option is available 24/7 and allows greater flexibility for separated parents to use the CMS and manage their child maintenance arrangements in a way that suits them.

That brings me to the standard of service that customers receive when they go to the CMS—a point raised by numerous colleagues today. The CMS is committed to delivering service to the highest standard and has created a more customer-focused culture over the years. In the past, the CMS has experimented with personal caseworkers —a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford—but it was found that that does not offer the best service. Instead, the CMS organises caseworkers into more tightly formed teams, which allows for knowledge and expertise sharing, so any caseworker can deal with any of their team’s cases. We find that that is the best way forward, but I will gladly pick that point up separately with the hon. Gentleman later.

The hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised the incredibly important issue of domestic abuse survivors. The CMS takes domestic abuse very seriously and has substantially strengthened its procedures to ensure customers can use the CMS safely. The CMS updated its domestic abuse training programme to give clear guidance to caseworkers on how to support victims of domestic abuse. The Department also commissioned an independent review of ways in which the CMS supports survivors of domestic abuse, including those facing and suffering from financial abuse.

The review was conducted by Dr Samantha Callan, who consulted a range of domestic abuse stakeholders and leading charities, as well as CMS customers who have, sadly, experienced domestic abuse. The Government will, of course, carefully consider the findings of the review and any recommendations.

Moving on to the issue of unearned income, we are also looking to take new measures to ensure that income gained from sources other than earnings is distributed fairly. The CMS compliance and arrears strategy 2018 introduced powers that allowed notional income from assets such as coins and gold, income derived from capital, and any foreign income to be used in the assessment, but we want to go further. We propose making changes in legislation that enable the child maintenance calculation to include unearned income that is not currently captured—for example, savings and investment income, and dividends.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister very much for what he has said so far. I think that each and every one of us here today—and, indeed, those who are not here—have the very same issues, particularly that of men trying to hide their incomes. For instance, before a couple separates, money could be moved out of bank accounts and properties could be shoved sideways into the ownership of parents, brothers, sisters or new partners. Does the DWP have the power to investigate such cases in a thorough, almost forensic way? That is really what is needed.

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—with conviction, as always—but until an application is made to the CMS, it has no jurisdiction to investigate finances. It is important that applications are put in place so that that sort of action can move forward.

[Jim Shannon]

Does that mean that there is going to be a review of the system and that it will lead to such action? If it does, that is a giant step forward.

[David Rutley]

That is a point on which the redoubtable Baroness will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman. I will write to him on that point.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way one further time?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman is very persuasive. I will allow him one last intervention, because he is a good man, but then I think we better move on.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank you as well, Ms Rees, because I would not be able to intervene without your say-so.

I also made a point about the evidential base. The ex-wife has great knowledge of where the money is. I referred to her knowing “where the dead bodies are buried”. She knows everything. Discussions with the wife are really important. Can that also be part of the process that the Baroness is considering?

[David Rutley]

I will ensure that the Baroness hears these views. We have all had cases as parliamentarians that have shown us that there are real challenges. We want to lean into this and tackle the challenges appropriately. I have a couple of concluding remarks, which I hope will give Members some confidence.

We have talked about dividends and unearned income. This addresses the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, to some extent. Including that income will reduce the scope for parents to organise their financial affairs in such a way as to reduce their financial liability for their children, which is the situation that we need to stop. Parents need to honour their responsibilities. I also recognise the current cost of living pressures as a result of rising prices around the world and the impact of the Ukrainian war. We will strive to introduce this change as soon as possible.

On enforcement, between January 2020 and December 2021 we arranged a total of 14,300 deduction orders, which represents about 33% of non-paying collect and pay parents. We also referred 15,000 parents to enforcement agents, which represents about 35% of non-paying collect and pay parents. These enforcement actions are taken before sanctions are considered.

During the same period, where further action was needed the CMS initiated almost 6,000 sanction actions against non-paying parents, which represents about 13% of non-paying collect and pay parents. That led to 249 prison sentences—244 suspended of them and five immediate.

We are always looking for new, innovative and effective ways to encourage paying parents to provide the financial support that their children need. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set out, we are aiming to introduce curfew powers before the end of the year—I understand the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw—and changes to the measures on unearned income after that, which will increase the range of enforcement measures available. Having listened to today’s contributions, I think that those changes will meet with the approval of the hon. Members in attendance.

I thank hon. Members for their participation in this important debate and I hope they will join me in agreeing that the CMS provides an important service. We will continue to keep under review options with regard to CMS policy and operational reforms. Hon. Members can be assured that we will strive to continue addressing the needs of separated parents and producing better outcomes for children—it is a clear priority.

Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe; we have seen a fair bit of each other this week. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this debate, on a subject on which I know she has campaigned at length. In fact, we have sparred on a few different issues, because this is not the only subject she has concerns about.

The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to supporting families and helping parents into work. Since this has come up in the debate, it is worth reminding colleagues of the 1.3 million vacancies available for people to find work. We want there to be strong work incentives to help people to fill the opportunities that are available, while providing support for those who need it. We also need to ensure that there is a sense of fairness for the taxpayer; many working families who do not receive benefits do not see their incomes rise when they have more children. That is why we judge that the policy to support a maximum of two children, whether that is with universal credit or child tax credit, is a proportionate way to achieve those aims. Our overall approach is working, as evidenced by the fact that between 2016 and 2021, the number of couples who are in employment and have children increased by 460,000; that is a 2.3 percentage point increase in the employment rate for that group.

The two-child policy was introduced five years ago. Since April 2017, families have been able to claim support for up to two children. There may be further entitlement for other children if they were born before 6 April 2017 or if an exception applies—I will come back to that in a minute. The child element of universal credit is worth £290 for the first child born before 6 April 2017. It is worth a standard rate of £244.58 per child for the second and any other eligible children. Child benefit continues to be paid for all children, plus the additional element in child tax credit or universal credit for any disabled children. The 2021-22 rates for the disabled child addition in universal credit are £128.89 per month for the lower rate and £402.41 per month for the higher rate. Additional help for eligible childcare costs through working tax credit and universal credit are also available, regardless of the total number of children in the household. We discussed that at length in the Work and Pensions Committee yesterday—although that feels like quite a long time ago.

We recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family. That is why exceptions have been put in place to protect certain groups. Exceptions apply to third and subsequent children who are additional children in a multiple birth; an extra amount is payable for all children in a multiple birth other than the first child. Exceptions also apply where the child is likely to have been born as a result of non-consensual conception, which for this purpose includes rape or where the claimant was in a controlling or coercive relationship with the child’s other biological parent at the time of conception. A further exception applies to any children in a household who are adopted when they would otherwise be in local authority care, or who are living long term with friends or family and would otherwise be at risk of entering the care system. Another exemption is where a child under the age of 16 who is living with their parents or carers has a child of their own—until they make a separate claim upon turning 16.

Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2020, 85% of all families with dependent children had a maximum of two in their family. For lone parent families, the figure was 83%. Based on the latest figures, 62% of households with a third or subsequent child who are in receipt of universal credit or child tax credit are not affected by the two-child policy.

[Hywel Williams]

The Minister has given a long list of the benefits available to people and some of the ameliorative procedures that have been put in place, but what is the actual effect of the two-child limit? Is he saying that it has no effect at all or that its effects have been ameliorated? What is the effect on the kids in those families?

[David Rutley]

The point that I am trying to make is that the benefits system is important—it provides support—but it is not the only thing that we are trying to do for people and for claimants.

As the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has highlighted, many of those people are working while on benefits. We want them to get into work and, when they are in employment, to progress. As has been debated long and hard in this Chamber, we have recently introduced work coaches who focus on in-work progression; we have 37 champions across the country who are helping to push that agenda forward. That is vital so that people can progress. People do not depend just on the benefits system; we want them to see more in their wage packet, and we have provided work incentives to do that, be it through the UC taper rate changes that have been put in place or through the increased work allowances. Those are vital incentives.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[David Rutley]

I will give way to the SNP spokesperson, but then I will make some progress, because others have made many points and I have several to make myself.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way. On the point about helping people’s wage packets and making work pay, does he not agree that the minimum wage should reflect the national living wage so that people get a proper, fair wage?

[David Rutley]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the national minimum wage has gone up to £9.50—[Interruption.] There is a bit of head-shaking going on; it is very disturbing. The national minimum wage is now £9.50 and is projected by many to reach £10. The £9.50 figure is a 6.6% increase, which is very welcome. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that significant increase.

A few things have been said about the non-consensual conception exemption. We recognise that it is a difficult and sensitive issue, and we have put in place procedures that are mindful of the sensitivities involved. Third-party professionals include healthcare professionals, registered social workers and relevant specialist charities, which can also signpost claimants to further support, so claimants will get the support that they need and be assisted through the light-touch processes in challenging circumstances. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about rape conviction rates. I reassure her—I think she knows this, but let me put it on the record—that the criteria for the non-consensual conception exemption is much wider than just conviction. The third-party professionals can assist in those circumstances as well.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I think everybody in this Chamber loves, highlighted many situations—nearly all of them, actually. I agree with him that there are a few exceptions, but clearly, we will have differences of opinion on this point. He and I share a love of ensuring that people can express their faith freely—that is a fundamental part of our democracy—and the policy does not seek to get in the way of that vital democratic right and freedom that we all cherish. The Government have published an impact assessment noting that ethnic minority households may be more likely to be impacted by the policy because they are, on average, more likely to be in receipt of child tax credit or universal credit, or to have larger families. That could also be the case for households of a particular religion, but the DWP has insufficient data to confirm that. I highlight that the Supreme Court found that the two-child policy was lawful and not in breach of the European convention on human rights.

Points have been made about abortion and fertility rates. The Nuffield Foundation’s research consortium on larger families has this month published a report outlining that fertility rates for those claiming, or eligible to claim, benefits have changed very little since the introduction of the policy. That would seem to refute the evidence from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service that was discussed earlier. The policy was never designed to affect fertility rates; it is fundamentally about seeking to provide fairness with those who are unable to access benefits, when it comes to the choices that they have to make.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central also asked the question—

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I do not think that the hon. Member was here for the whole debate. I will take interventions from others, who have had the courtesy to be here for the whole debate, but I will carry on for now.

On the point about monitoring, we are keeping all our policies under review, but this policy seeks to strike the right balance between supporting those in need and fairness for taxpayers and those who support themselves primarily through work, who do not see their incomes rise when they have more children.

The hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made some points about poverty and whether this policy is impacting it. I am sure they are assiduously following the latest households below average income statistics, which show that the support we put in place around benefits and incentives for people to get into work—creating a vibrant labour market so that people can get into work and progress—means that 1.2 million fewer people were in absolute low income, before housing costs, in 2020-21, compared with 2009-10. That included 200,000 fewer children and 500,000 fewer working-age adults. Furthermore, there are now nearly 1 million fewer workless households and, very importantly, almost 540,000 fewer children living in such households than in 2010.

[Ms Buck]

Can the Minister confirm that he accepts the point I made in my speech—that the number of families with three or more children that are in absolute poverty has gone up significantly?

[David Rutley]

Our policy is to seek to ensure that we get more children out of workless households, which we are succeeding in doing, and that there are more employment opportunities for people. We are moving that agenda forward very successfully in the current labour market, and we need to continue to move it forward.

The most sustainable way to lift children out of poverty is by supporting parents to get into, and progress in, work wherever possible. The Government have consistently said that the best way to support people’s living standards is through good work, better skills and higher wages. We have provided significant work incentives, which I have already highlighted, through universal credit, but also through our plan for jobs and the kickstart and restart schemes, which demonstrated the Department’s commitment to supporting families to get into, or to progress in, work. We have a range of policies that support people and families across the tax and benefits systems, and the household support fund for those who are particularly vulnerable.

I would highlight, one final time, that on 9 July 2021, the Supreme Court handed down the judicial review judgment on the two-child policy. The court found that the policy was lawful and not in breach of the European convention on human rights. The policy to support a maximum of two children strikes a balance between providing support for those who need it and ensuring a sense of fairness to taxpayers.

Work and Pensions

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on In-work Poverty on 16 March 2022.

[David Rutley]

I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan. [Official Report, 16 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 362WH.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley):

An error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct information should have been:

[David Rutley]

I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year and next that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to tackle deprivation through its benefits policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We know that moving into work—particularly full-time work—is the best way to tackle poverty. We are taking decisive action to make work pay, giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our changes to the universal credit taper rate and work allowances.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I represent Gainsborough South West ward, the 24th most deprived in the country. I wonder whether the Minister would like to come to Gainsborough and discuss with me how we can have pilot schemes, perhaps in the 100 most deprived wards in the country, to really tackle the problem of deprivation with a cross-Government approach that would improve universal credit and tax credits to get people into work and keep them in work, help businesses create jobs in those wards and, above all, help with housing. Is that not a good idea?

[David Rutley]

It is always a good idea to meet my right hon. Friend, and I will look forward to that. He is absolutely right: the best way to assist people is to help them gain the skills they need to move into work and to progress in work. In Gainsborough, the local jobcentre has worked in partnership with the local council, training providers and the owners of a local business park to recruit staff for a new hospitality venue called the Caldero Lounge through a sector-based work academy programme to help get unemployed people back into work, and there is another SWAP already in train in his constituency. I look forward to meeting him.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Back in the real world, we have seen food bank use rocket over the last 12 years—the Trussell Trust alone distributed 2.5 million emergency food parcels in 2020-21, compared with 40,000 in 2010—and it is set to balloon further as the cost of living soars. That is not tackling poverty through the benefits policy. What does the Minister think went wrong with the welfare state under the Conservatives?

[David Rutley]

With a record 1.3 million vacancies in the UK, our top priority needs to be to get people into work. We have the household support fund to help people who have vulnerabilities in their lives. That has played a very important role, with £500 million.

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

The new report from the centre-right Centre for Social Justice is about the latest scourge to hit the desperate and the destitute: illegal money lending. Over a million people have been driven into the arms of illegal money lenders. The report—by the Centre for Social Justice, not the Labour party—states:

“We can expect this to get worse. The emergent cost-of-living crisis casts a looming shadow of financial anxiety.”

It adds that

“pressures on household budgets, low financial resilience and increasingly limited credit options”

are creating “a perfect storm”, driving people “towards exploitation”. Given soaring inflation and falling real living standards, does the Minister expect that there will be more or fewer people in destitution this year?

[David Rutley]

We work hard to ensure that people receive the money they need and we also work hard to ensure people get into work. As far as people needing debt management advice, we can do that through our jobcentres. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), also does a huge amount of work in this area to provide the right sort of advice on money and pensions.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that in February, 9,846 people were claiming universal credit in Darlington. Does he agree that the decision to increase the living wage, extend the work allowance and reduce the taper rate will massively improve the income of people on universal credit?

[David Rutley]

Absolutely. We want to make sure that work pays, and my hon. Friend has highlighted that fantastically.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that disabled people are supported in work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What steps she is taking to help people with childcare costs to move from universal credit into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

To support people to become financially resilient by moving into work and progressing in employment, eligible UC claimants can claim back up to 85% of their registered childcare costs each month regardless of the number of hours they work, compared with 70% in tax credits.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Today is national Single Parents’ Day, a day on which I remember my late mum and everything she did to raise me and my sisters. Many single parents in Vauxhall struggling on universal credit find it impossible to pay up front for childcare, because universal credit pays them in arrears. How can the Minister justify forcing universal credit claimants to pay money that they simply do not have for childcare while parents receiving tax-free childcare receive that funding immediately?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and I also pay respect to her mum and to single parents across the UK on today of all days. I thoroughly recommend that her constituents go to the jobcentre and see the work coaches, because a flexible support fund is available that can help to take care of up-front payments for childcare. I would gladly talk to her about that afterwards if she needs further direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

15. What steps she is taking to tackle identity fraud and abuse of the benefits system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We take all fraud very seriously and have a wide range of measures in place, supported by £613 million of additional funding. Our integrated risk and intelligence service co-ordinates the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from identity fraud, including threats from organised criminals. We will continue to do all that we can to track down fraudsters.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I was contacted by my constituent, Dr Ralph Mitchell, after he was contacted by a debt collection agency on behalf of the DWP for a £1,500 outstanding debt. He has never taken UC or made any form of claim before. He rang the Department and, after many phone calls, was unable to have the debt removed. He was told that he was a victim of identity theft. It took the involvement of my office and myself to get that resolved. What are we doing to prevent identity theft, and what is the Department doing to make sure that the communications with those who fall victim to it are sorted out as swiftly as possible?

[David Rutley]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for his constituent. Verification of identity remains a critical requirement for all DWP benefits, and we are recruiting an additional 2,000 trained specialists to identify and stop scammers. We work hard to make sure that victims of identity fraud are not penalised and that universal credit benefits staff have access to information and intelligence from other sources prior to the payment, which allows them to make a real-time risk assessment on a case. Anyone who contacts us about a notification regarding a debt for a claim that they believe they never made will have their case referred to our stolen ID team, and we will endeavour to contact them within 48 hours.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

16. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the benefit rates for disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

The Secretary of State is legally required to conduct an annual review of benefit rates to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices. We have used the same approach since April 1987 of uprating benefits based on the increase in the relevant inflation index, the consumer prices index, in the 12 months to the previous September. We will spend over £59 billion this year, 2021-22, on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions.

[Wera Hobhouse]

One of my Bath constituents, who is disabled, has been told by his energy supplier that his bill will go up by £130 in April. He is on legacy benefits; he is not eligible for a top-up. He does not know how to cope. According to the charity Scope, he is not alone: disabled people are more than twice as likely to have a cold house and more than three times as likely not to be able to afford food. Thousands of disabled people are losing trust in the system. To improve trust and transparency in the DWP, will the Minister commit to automatically providing audio recordings of assessments, unless a claimant opts out, and to providing all claimants with a copy of the assessor’s report by default?

[David Rutley]

We take seriously the points that the hon. Member makes. Each interaction is key. We want to make sure that people get the support that they need, and we can achieve that through vehicles such as the household support fund, but I will take away her specific point and write back to her with a full response.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Rutley]

As the hon. Member heard over the weekend, the Chancellor said that where he can, he will support and provide assistance to people. There is a track record of that through the pandemic and in response to rising energy prices, with his three-part plan.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

17. What steps she is taking to increase the number of people in work in Rother Valley constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

24. What assessment she has made of the barriers to work for tenants who are in (a) supported housing and (b) receipt of housing benefit at exempt accommodation rates.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We are committed to tackling barriers to work for everybody, especially those in supported housing. Through our Plan for Jobs, we are targeting tailored support at people of all ages to help them to prepare for, get into and progress in work.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I welcomed the announcement made by the Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), towards the end of last week about regulation of supported housing—that is a very good move—but at present there are people in supported housing where there is an exemption from the housing benefit limit, so they could be paying hundreds of pounds a week in rent. My local DWP branch tells me that that is a real deterrent for them to come off housing benefit or universal credit and get into work. What is the Minister doing to address the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

As a result of my Food Insecurity Bill, the family resources survey now reports on food insecurity. The survey found that one of the key reasons, even pre-pandemic, that people could not afford to eat was that benefits were grossly inadequate. Does the Secretary of State think that the pitiful 3.1% increase in benefits, when inflation will peak at 8%, is going to make people more or less able to afford to eat?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

The uprating was in line with inflation in the way that it has been calculated since 1987, but additional support is available, through the three-part plan that the Chancellor set out to tackle energy costs and through the household support fund.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Blackpool South has one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire nation, but there are more than 1,000 job vacancies in the local area. Despite that, many local businesses tell me that they struggle to recruit, as often they have few applicants for local roles and some of those who attend job interviews often do everything they can not to get the job. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who are able to work do not continue to refuse reasonable offers of employment?

DWP Estate: Office Closures

David Rutley Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is not what I asked. We will leave it for now. We had better move on.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

At the Department for Work and Pensions, we constantly look at ways to improve our services. I wish to say up-front that we know it is important to communicate changes to all relevant stakeholders so that everyone understands our plans and why we are making changes.

This seems to be an unusual situation, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing that the embargo agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union does not seem to have been respected. Clearly, our staff should be the top priority at this time. I hope colleagues will understand that I am not able to go into all the detail this morning as we are briefing affected colleagues as we speak. In fact, the delivery of the first stage of the strategy is being announced to affected colleagues at 10.30 today—right now. The Minister for Employment will write to MPs with an affected site in their constituency after 1 pm today, and there will be a written statement to Parliament tomorrow morning. The letter to MPs will include notification of a virtual surgery that the Minister for Employment will hold on Wednesday 23 March.

The change is to back-of-house offices and will support the delivery of the Government priorities to get more people back into employment, to deliver long-term savings for the taxpayer and to meet Government commitments to modernise public services. The Department has developed a strategy that will, over the next 10 years, reshape and improve how, where and when it delivers services to claimants. The Department is transitioning to an estate that is smaller, greener and better. This will deliver substantial benefits by increasingly developing modern, secure, resilient, sustainable and automated systems to drive better experiences for our customers, colleagues and taxpayers.

The plans for the next three-year period affect the future delivery of back-of-house services—that is, services that are delivered remotely via telephone and online, without the need to see customers face to face. I assure the House that the plans do not affect Jobcentre Plus and customer-facing roles. We have been engaging fully with PCS union representatives at the sites affected since January, and PCS union representatives will be present at sites for the announcements today, as the House would expect. Our focus today is, of course, on supporting staff through the changes.

Changes to DWP estates are not unusual. Like most public services, we are always looking to meet our customers’ changing needs, reflecting developments in technology and the approaches of successive Governments. We value our staff and are working with them now to support those who will be affected by the changes as we seek to deliver the best possible services to our customers at all times.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group—which, of course, contains more than 100 Members of Parliament.

Will the Minister confirm that the announcement could mean that 3,000 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions are at risk of redundancy? What measures will he take to ensure that that does not happen? Has there been an equality impact assessment of the proposals? I am thinking particularly about the impact on employees who have disabilities, for example, and may not be able to move to another location that may be miles away.

The Minister is aware that the proposals were first mooted six years ago and that the Department is looking to close offices in areas of high economic deprivation. That seems rather counterintuitive in the context of the so-called levelling-up agenda. Has an economic assessment been made of the closures and their impact on the local economies in the areas where it is proposed to close offices?

[David Rutley]

On our plans, we have, as I said, been working closely with colleagues and PCS over recent months. Around 12,000 colleagues will be moving from one site to another that is in close proximity—that will involve around 28 sites. Around 1,300 colleagues could be involved at sites where there is no other strategic site nearby. We are looking at what opportunities there are within the DWP and at what other opportunities there might be across other Government Departments. We have seen in other areas how this can work, and we are committed to doing that. Clearly, we will look at any other options that might work for those individuals.

Let me turn to the impact on the local economies. There are not normally too many people involved on each individual site, but, clearly, we have been working very hard to strengthen local economies, with the opening of a large number of new jobcentres. Again, I stress that this is about back-of house roles. This will not impact on jobcentres and the customer-facing interactions within the constituencies.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I think that this would have been much better dealt with in a statement rather than requiring an urgent question. I understand that an office in a neighbouring constituency will be closing, so I urge my hon. Friend to make sure that we notify not just MPs in the constituency where the office is closing, but MPs in neighbouring constituencies, such as mine, where, for example, people will be travelling to work in those places and will be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We will, of course, make sure that those communications are made. We will also make sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has those conversations with MPs. If any MP needs to contact her, they should do so, and she will be willing to talk to them. She will also proactively get out to speak to colleagues. Please be sensitive to the fact that she is currently recovering from covid at home, so I am fulfilling her role today. If any colleagues wish to speak to me after this urgent question, I will gladly meet them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It looks as though the Department for Work and Pensions does not believe in levelling up, does not believe in its own rhetoric on jobs, and does not believe in keeping people in work. We hear that offices will be closed in Stoke, Southend, Peterborough, Chesterfield, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, Barrow, Bishop Auckland, Doncaster and Burnley, taking jobs out of these communities. Can the Minister answer these questions for the Members in Stoke, in Wellingborough and in Stockton whose communities and constituents will be concerned about the news today? We have heard that up to 12,000 jobs might be affected, but how many of the workers will be able to find new jobs locally within the Department? Can the Minister guarantee that there will no compulsory redundancies?

I appreciate that staff are being informed only this morning, but this is the correct forum for the Minister to answer these important questions. The PSC Union has said that its members are facing spiralling workloads. Is it not the case that the Department actually needs more staff, not fewer? If these closures are allowed to go ahead, we will face the absurd prospect of making staff redundant in one area, while recruiting new staff in another to do exactly the same job. That will be both costly and inefficient, so can the Minister confirm that that will not be allowed to happen?

If these closures go ahead, local communities will be faced with the loss of hundreds of good jobs potentially. Many of the closures are in areas of economic deprivation that can hardly afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. Will there be a plan to help those communities attract well-paid jobs back to their local areas? This all comes at a time when families and working people are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis made by this Government. The price of petrol, food and energy is still soaring and people are worried about the future. Has there been any assessment of the impact that these job losses will have on the local economy? I think the Minister indicated in his previous answer that there had not been, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. Has any consideration been given to the effect that this will have on the high streets of the affected towns? Will we see yet more boarded-up buildings? This is the opposite of levelling up; this is levelling down and it is closing down.

[David Rutley]

We are absolutely committed to bringing forward more jobs. Jobs are being filled and employment is at a record high. We have vacancies. It is important to highlight that the number of front-of-house roles that we are fulfilling has increased significantly. We have taken forward a rapid estate expansion programme over the past two years. We have created 170 new Jobcentre Plus offices. Many colleagues across the House will be beneficiaries of that along with their constituents. By the end of March, that increase will be up to 194, so there will be 831 Jobcentre Plus offices, which is a huge, huge investment. There will also be an increase in work coaches, which will be a real benefit to our customers. As I have said, the roles that we are talking about are back of house. An equality impact assessment has been made—I do not think that I mentioned that earlier. On the impact on communities, on the whole, this will involve a relatively small number of colleagues in particular communities. We want to make sure that we support those people back into work. For the vast majority, there are jobs close by, and we will help them to transition into those areas. For those who do not have jobs close by, we will give them the support that they need.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on this urgent question, though I feel this should perhaps have been offered as a statement. What I cannot quite understand is that the Minister is saying that no Jobcentre Plus offices are closing, but the shadow Minister says offices are closing. Which is correct, and does it affect anything in my area? This is all new to me.

[David Rutley]

To be clear, this relates to back-of-house offices that are often in our local communities. We are trying to update our estates, some of which are no longer fit for purpose, and to bring together colleagues with the right levels of experience to create clusters that will help the provision of back-of-house facilities and services. I want to be clear again—I am sorry if I was not clear earlier—that this does not affect front-of-house Jobcentre Plus. By the end of March we will have invested in an extra 194 of those facilities. We have increased the number of people who work in our Department and, as I said, we want to look after the people affected by these back-of-house changes. Hopefully that is clear to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I, too, think it would have been better if the Government had offered this as a statement to the House. May I ask specifically about the Longbenton site in East Newcastle, which the Department shares with the Inland Revenue? What impact will today’s statement have on employment at the site and the future location of the Department’s employees on the site? It is a famous site, and they have been there since the 1950s. The Inland Revenue, which holds the lease, is giving it up and moving elsewhere. It is pretty logical that the Department will follow. Is it moving, and if so, where to? I make the obvious plea to the Minister that we want to keep the jobs in Newcastle upon Tyne.

[David Rutley]

I understand the question and the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman asks it; I know he has a lot of concern for his own constituency. We are briefing staff right now, so I am not in a position to give him the details now from the Dispatch Box, but I will gladly meet him directly afterwards to talk through his concerns and seek to reassure him. I think that is the most appropriate way of doing it, given where we are right now in the process.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend outline to the House in a little more detail how these changes will lead to better working conditions for staff in the Department, what amounts of excess space the Department has and what opportunities there will be for people to relocate? I am thinking of those people elsewhere in County Durham perhaps having the opportunity to relocate to offices in my constituency.

[David Rutley]

DWP has too much estate. Recent calculations estimate there is capacity for 158,000 people, but the maximum headcount is forecast to be around 97,500 people. We need to ensure that we use that estate as effectively as possible, both for our colleagues and for the taxpayer. We want to refocus colleagues to work in clusters so that they can most effectively support customers and claimants, but at the same time help them to improve and develop their careers.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Many of the closures are in disadvantaged areas, including Liverpool, which cannot afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. Can the Minister explain what he is doing to support those areas?

[David Rutley]

As I have said to other hon. Members, our top priority right now is working with the staff and supporting them through the changes. Most of the colleagues affected will be moving to other facilities that are really close by. In terms of the impact on the specific communities involved, typically the number of staff involved in a particular area is quite small. However, we will seek to see what we can do to improve. I do not have the details in front of me, but I am sure there will have been new, front-facing Jobcentre Plus offices put in place in Liverpool, because that is our commitment to help more people to get into work.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

In Harlow, the Department actually expanded the jobcentre, so it is now in two buildings, one in the Harvey Centre, which I visited recently and which is doing an enormous amount of work in getting Harlow people back to work. Will my hon. Friend or the Minister for employment come and visit the two jobcentres we now have in Harlow that are doing so much to help employment in our town?

[David Rutley]

As my right hon. Friend highlights, we are doing a huge amount of work to help claimants to find work and to help people to progress in work. I am delighted that he has those facilities in Harlow and I or the Minister for employment will gladly come and visit in the very near future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Stephen Timms.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he says it with authority as the Chair of the Select Committee, but I think he also understands that we are making a major investment in the front end—the customer-facing side—of our Department. As I said, over the past two years we have been increasing the number of jobcentres to 194. That will enable us to do exactly what he wants—to provide support for individuals across all ages through the plan for jobs.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I was a bit concerned about the response that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) about the proposals for the site at Longbenton. We already know that the Inland Revenue is relocating from that site to central Newcastle upon Tyne, but what is proposed directly for the staff employed by the Department for Work and Pensions? This affects many MPs in the area who have hundreds of constituents employed at that very large site.

[David Rutley]

As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), I will gladly meet both him and the hon. Gentleman after this to discuss those concerns further. The Minister for employment will actively engage with affected colleagues, and we are engaging with the staff as we speak.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question. Ebury House in my constituency has been earmarked for closure. Will the Minister agree to meet me urgently to discuss what impact this will have on staff, and can he provide a cast-iron guarantee to this House and to my constituents that the services they receive will not be impacted?

[David Rutley]

This will not impact on services because the services we are talking about are primarily telephony and digital. Clearly, our primary concern now is to see what we can do to support people who might be impacted by the changing terms for staff. I will of course meet the hon. Gentleman after this, or during the course of today, to discuss his concerns more fully.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On two occasions now, the Minister has referred to the equalities impact assessment, saying that this amounts to relatively small numbers of people at each site who will be affected, but over the whole estate, “small” can add up to a lot of individuals. Given that these jobs are located disproportionately in more deprived communities, the loss of good-quality public sector jobs is a really important issue. What conversations are the Minister and his Department having now with those people who may be affected, and what efforts is he really putting in place to ensure that nobody loses their job and everybody is redeployed?

[David Rutley]

As I have said before, we are working with the vast majority of the individuals who can be relocated very close to their current facility. We will continue to work hard with others, too. This is our top priority. We value our colleagues, who have helped the Department through some incredibly challenging times over the past couple of years, and we want to support them through the period now. I highlight to a couple of Members who have made this point that we continue to be committed to the Newcastle area, but I will meet those colleagues after this urgent question.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question, although I entirely agree that it would not have been necessary, had the Minister not tried to sneak the announcement out in a written statement on Friday after most of us had gone back to our constituencies. One of the premises earmarked for closure is Victoria Road in Kirkcaldy, which is not in my constituency, but employs a number of my constituents and provides support services for about 3,000 of my constituents in north-west Kirkcaldy. I echo the plea made earlier that the Minister should write to all Members of Parliament, because he probably does not know which constituencies have people who are affected by each of those closures. In that letter, will he explicitly set out why they should believe the assurances being given that this office closure programme will have no impact on public service, when similar promises given about HMRC’s office closure programme turned out to be utterly worthless?

[David Rutley]

Those MPs who have affected sites in their constituencies will be written to by 1 pm today, so further details will be available. If other colleagues may be affected tangentially, we will make an extra effort to contact them as well.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am not sure that is good enough, if the Minister does not mind me saying so. I think all Members of Parliament should be written to, clearly explaining what the Government are doing and what the implications are for our constituencies. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) read out the list of areas affected. He mentioned Doncaster, so can the Minister please tell me what that means for my constituency of Hull North and the city of Hull?

[David Rutley]

Right now, we are speaking to the colleagues affected. We have engaged PCS every step of the way to ensure we are following the right process so far as colleagues go. The engagement with parliamentary colleagues will take place as planned at 1 pm today, when letters will be made available. If the right hon. Member has further concerns, I will make sure that the Minister for employment contacts her after this urgent question.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

This issue speaks to the treatment of DWP staff, with morale in DWP offices across the country already at rock bottom, not least due to DWP management’s response to covid among staff. That has been an ongoing issue, but the Renfrew Jobcentre Plus office effectively closed after staff had to walk out after management refused to act after eight out of 18 staff tested positive for covid. In the end, 16 out of 18 staff tested positive. Can the Minister tell me what covid safeguarding, if any, is in place at DWP offices across the country, whether earmarked for closure or otherwise? Do they all follow the relevant local public health advice and regulations?

[David Rutley]

The Department has been following all the guidance that it needed to, and if there are concerns about that, I will gladly follow up with the hon. Member outside the Chamber.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify something? My understanding is that the Government are proposing a full site consolidation involving moving staff from Seaham Lighthouse View in my constituency to Wear View House in Sunderland. The impact of these closures in areas of economic deprivation, such as east Durham, will be huge, and we can ill afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. My question to the Minister is: how will closing a DWP office in my constituency that employs 390 people help Easington to level up, when the Government are moving employment to the larger cities?

[David Rutley]

We had a full debate in Westminster Hall yesterday that the hon. Member was successful in securing, and we discussed this in more detail. What we can do to support his area is not just around the changes we are proposing today, but is much broader. There is a big broad economic agenda to improve the north-east, which his constituency will benefit from, too.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question. He is open and transparent about his strong trade union membership, unlike some Members of the House, who spend their weekends partying with Russian lords and are not open about that.

The Minister talked about the process of digitisation. Estonia is one of the great digital states of Europe and, as it admitted, the big failure of its transition to digital statehood was not recognising the profound impact on the most vulnerable, not only in the delivery of public service at the front end but in the back office. Can he assure the House that there will be no detriment to public service at the front end, given that he is removing the back office?

[David Rutley]

We are not removing the back office; we are modernising it. Of course we want to ensure that we deliver, at the front end, for people in the channels that need it. It is interesting and important that many people who have disabilities or health conditions and who are staff members can now be empowered to do their work, because they do not have to travel because of digital capabilities. There are some exciting possibilities there, notwithstanding the fact that, on the frontline, we need to ensure that we are providing support for all customers in the way they need it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the impact of job losses, the Minister has clearly said that, in his opinion, there will be no impact on the offices and the delivery of the service, but I suggest that there is always an impact when jobs are lost. People who live in rural constituencies who have to travel by bus or do not have a car can be sanctioned if they do not attend their appointments. Can he assure the House that the benefit entitlements of constituents of MPs present, and not present, will not be affected by the changes in the offices?

[David Rutley]

I assure the House that this does not have an impact on the front end—on the activities that we do to support our claimants and our customers. It is also important to reconfirm that we are not reducing staff numbers; the focus is on retaining as many people as possible. We have great staff and we want to retain them. In many cases, people will relocate to another site in close proximity.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate this afternoon on protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond. Unfortunately, it seems to have dropped off the Order Paper and no one understands why. I am sure that Government business has changed, but through your offices, may I encourage the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to allow time for that debate, plenty of time before COP15 happens?

In-work Poverty

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate. I recall having had a similar debate with a similar cast list recently, so some of the arguments are familiar but some have been amplified. I take all of them seriously and will endeavour to answer some of the questions. No doubt others will be addressed separately, but I look forward to responding to them. Like the hon. Member, who is very kind, I wish the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) a speedy recovery and return to good health. She would have been keen to be here had she had been able to.

Prior to this debate, I had just come out of a meeting with Communities that Work, a group of housing associations that help people into work and to progress in employment. I am grateful for the work it is doing. One of the participants was Helen Johnson, a livin futures manager at Livin Housing in the north-east, who is doing great work in Country Durham. Despite party political differences and different views on policy, we can all applaud the work those people are doing to help literally thousands of people—in this case, tenants—to achieve their potential in employment opportunities. I congratulate them on that work. All hon. Members present want to see everybody have the opportunity to progress in work, improve their earnings and realise their potential.

[Andy McDonald]

We hear with unerring regularity the mantra that the only way for someone to progress and live a good and flourishing life is to progress out of their current job. It will then be occupied by somebody else, who will be paid a low wage. Where is the dignity or decency in that philosophy, which does not have regard for the people doing the key jobs we applauded all the way through the pandemic?

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, and that is why we have taken steps in that direction. I was going to come on to that in my speech, but I will come to it now. The national living wage, which we have already talked about, is projected to increase to £10, and other steps are being taken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington would have the courtesy to let me respond. He raised that question earlier in the debate. Another important point is that policies, such as the increase in work allowances and the reduction in the taper rate for people on universal credit, are helping people in work to progress, do better and flourish.

We have already seen the creation of exiting job opportunities in the north-east, including through the industrial zone at the UK’s largest freeport, Teesworks, which is expected to create 20,000 jobs. Many of them are in green energy, establishing literally a green industry revolution in a region that many hon. Members participating in the debate represent. We should not forget that 6,000 jobs will be created as a result of Nissan’s plans for the UK’s first large-scale battery factory, as part of a £1 billion electric vehicle hub in Sunderland. That is alongside Stockton being on the frontline in the battle against covid, with the Novavax vaccine being made in Billingham later this year.

Opportunities abound in the north-east. Of course, we need to go further. I am disappointed that we are not hearing about these opportunities. So often we recognise that there are challenges, but there are also opportunities, and this Government are working hard to create them.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I would not dream of not giving way to the hon. Member, because she is always so polite with her questions.

[Patricia Gibson]

I want to press the Minister on something that has been in my inbox—in all of our inboxes, I am sure—in the last few weeks. One of the big outlays for people who are in work and suffering is the cost of petrol or diesel to get to work. We pay 58p per litre in fuel duty and 20% VAT on that—it is a tax on a tax. The Minister will know that the cost of petrol drives up the cost of goods and services across the whole economy, and that drives up and feeds inflation. Does he agree that if we cut the tax on petrol, we can stop inflation driving up into double digits?

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes; she makes it well and she makes it long. Perhaps we could do an Adjournment debate on the subject later. I recognise her point—I was trying to bring in a bit of humour there. With the fuel duty freeze that has been put in place we have been able to keep that cap over time. I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan. We are doing substantial work to try and address those challenges, and we will continue to review the situation. As hon. Members will appreciate, throughout the pandemic we looked at what the challenges were and we responded. We responded well in the Department I work in—universal credit was particularly resilient.

I want to address the questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—a good man who understands a lot of those matters—asked about jobs being advertised on the DWP website. They go through a process and are checked to make sure that they are at the minimum wage or above—there are obviously some exceptions. If he has further information on that, I will gladly follow up because I know he takes the issue very seriously.

[Chris Stephens]

I will send the Minister the articles from The Ferret website and The Herald, which found 10,000 such jobs in Scotland alone. Does that not suggest that there is a problem?

[David Rutley]

I will take a look at the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not familiar with all those issues, but he knows that I will follow that up.

Other points were raised about the health and social care levy, the purpose of which is to deal with backlogs in the NHS and the future costs of social care. Those with the broadest shoulders will rightly pick up the bulk of the cost, with the highest earning 14% paying around half of the revenues.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about statutory sick pay. That is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government offer of support for people in times of need. As we move on from the pandemic, the Government are continuing to take a broader look at the role of SSP—we are keeping the system under review.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always contributes well in these debates; I hope I have addressed some of his points about energy costs. We will continue to take a look at those issues.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) was concerned about uprating, but we have followed the time-worn process of looking at inflation in the year to September. All benefit ratings since April 1987 have been done on that basis; the Opposition could have changed that approach when they were in Government. However, in recognition of the challenges we face, we have a £20 billion package of support this year to help people.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also talked about deductions. I remind colleagues that we have put a spotlight on dedications, and we have reduced the maximum amount from 40% to 25%.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister look at the issue of pursuing debts that are over six years old? It seems a nonsense that we still pursue people who have had a debt for longer than that period, and then taking a deduction.

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee he will also realise that we are experiencing record levels of fraud, and we are absolutely determined to bear down on that. We need to get the balance right, because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.

[Alison McGovern]

Just to remind the Minister, when will the Government respond to the in-work progression report?

[David Rutley]

Of course, we recognise that we need to do more on in-work progression. The hon. Member is right to highlight that and we will respond shortly, and the response will be important. We are already taking action in this area, and I did not focus on that today because it was focused on in a previous debate. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) wanted to know what we were doing differently on progression, and I confirmed then and confirm now that we are working to put in place progression champions across the country who will make connections between employers, local authorities and skills providers and help more people to progress in work, which all of us across this Chamber want to achieve.

I believe passionately that we need to help people to see the opportunities before them and realise their potential. The plan for jobs helps people into work and also provides lots of mechanisms to enable people to progress in work. The progression work coaches will be a vital tool to help with that agenda. We know there is more to be done, and we are working hard to deliver on it.

Work and Pensions

David Rutley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on Regional Inequalities: Child Poverty on 2 March 2022.

[David Rutley]

Children living in households where all adults work were six times less likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs in 2019-20 than those in workless households. We have been making a difference: there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty before housing costs, and nearly 580,000 fewer children are living in workless households than in 2010.

[Official Report, 2 March 2022, Vol. 709, c. 398WH.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley):

An error has been identified in my contribution to the debate.

The correct information should have been:

[David Rutley]

Children living in households where all adults work were six times less likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs in 2019-20 than those in workless households. We have been making a difference: there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty before housing costs, and nearly 540,000 fewer children are living in workless households than in 2010.

Work and Pensions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on the Household Support Fund on 1 March 2022.

[David Rutley]

We are unfortunately not yet able to discuss the interim management information collected from the household support fund so far. The information gathered from the scheme will be published once the scheme has closed and the data has been properly analysed and checked by our officials. That management information on the household support fund will provide helpful further details on how local authorities have been using this important funding. The covid winter grant scheme management information was published in June 2021, and the covid local support grant management information was published in September 2021.

[Official Report, 1 March 2022, Vol. 709, c. 333WH.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley):

An error has been identified in my contribution to the debate.

The correct contribution should have been:

[David Rutley]

We are unfortunately not yet able to discuss the interim management information collected from the household support fund so far. The information gathered from the scheme will be published once the scheme has closed and the data has been properly analysed and checked by our officials. That management information on the household support fund will provide helpful further details on how local authorities have been using this important funding. The covid winter grant scheme management information was published in June 2021, and the covid local support grant management information was published in February 2022.