Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point—he has probably been reading my mind. Outreach work is key: how do we get to the most vulnerable, whether people in isolated parts of the country or those with learning difficulties or transport difficulties? We will look at outreach work and perhaps a mobile bus. We should look at new, good ideas for connecting with our claimants.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the money she managed to claw back from the Treasury—I advise her for her own safety not to take routes home in the dark that pass the Treasury. A crucial element of her statement was the one-off, non-repayable sum for claimants who have been transferred to universal credit. Will she give the House an assurance that the sum—non-repayable, therefore incurring no debt—will be equivalent to the sorts of sums people would get if they were already on universal credit?

[Ms McVey]

We have made sure that that will be people’s benefit going forward. As I said, it is the sum that they need when they adjust from two to four weeks and it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, non-returnable. That is to ensure that people can balance the money when moving from a two-week to a four-week payment. It is extra money.

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will indeed.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My right hon. Friend is correct to point out these facts. When we visit jobcentres, work coaches say that this is the best system that they have ever had to help people into work. We know the validity in that statement because 1,000 more people have been getting into work each and every day since 2010. We have to ensure that the system works for claimants and taxpayers.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

May I raise the question about which I wrote to the Secretary of State, regarding how universal credit is being rolled out in Birkenhead? It is not going as well there as we are told it is in the House of Commons, and some women have taken to the red light district for the first time. Will the Secretary of State come to Birkenhead to meet women’s organisations and the police, who are worried about the security of women being pushed into this position?

[Ms McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that my door is always open to him. I did receive a letter on Friday, but really we need to work with those ladies and see what help we can give them—from work coaches right the way through to various charities and organisations. In the meantime, perhaps he and the work coaches could tell these ladies that there are currently a record 830,000 job vacancies, and that perhaps there are other jobs on offer.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

An apology: I was in the House when somebody repeated that campaign phrase against the Secretary of State. I was stunned by what was said, and I hope that she will forgive me for not getting up immediately to object to it. I apologise for my total failure to respond as a human being when that was said, and I hope that she forgives me if I do not actually recite what was said, because such nastiness and evil is not directed just at her; it is directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the neighbouring constituency to the one that the Secretary of State fought. What is occurring is a disgrace. How we stop it, I do not know, but we can at least apologise when it occurs. I am grateful that the right hon. Lady raised it today so that my saying that would be in order.

[Ms McVey]

I know those words are heartfelt, and I accept that apology. It took a long time for people to come forward. I would have liked those on the Opposition Front Bench to have done so, because they represent the Labour party, and I know that such a thing is not at the heart of the Labour party.

We started off with a ding-dong in the Chamber today. I do not necessarily think that we are at our best in Parliament when we have a ding-dong like that. People watching outside do not understand the real reasons why we, on both sides of the House, came into politics. I put this on the record now: let us work cross-party to get universal credit right. Let us work with third sector organisations to get it right. Let us reach out and get it right, because it affects so many millions of people. We are doing our best, and lots more people are in work, but we can do more. Let us do it together.

[Frank Field]

One last point: Back Benchers can apologise only for our own action or inaction. That is my apology.

In this debate, one wonders what truth is and what facts are. When reading the NAO report, I reached totally different conclusions to the Secretary of State. I thought the message was that the Comptroller and Auditor General was perplexed beyond belief that he could not recommend to go back or to go forward. There was a clear recommendation that we should pause, and I ask the Secretary of State for that pause—not never to resume the roll-out, but to at least to ensure that we are not inflicting unnecessary suffering, horror and hunger on our constituents, which Opposition Members have certainly registered, and which must have been registered by Members on the other side of the House.

[Frank Field]

Yes, indeed, but I am really anxious to respond to the Secretary of State’s wish that we work together. The building block of working together is to take that key sentence from the NAO report, whatever else it said, about a pause—not to scrap universal credit, but to have a pause—to make sure that in three respects we are not party to inflicting untold misery, horror and hunger on our constituents.

The first is that we do not continue the roll-out until we have universal support. We do not have universal support in the way in which all of us understand the word universal.

Secondly, on real-time information, the experience in my constituency—it must be the experience in other constituencies as well—is that real-time information is neither real nor on time. That is causing the most incredible problems with people’s claims. Might we have a pause until we make sure the Revenue can service the Secretary of State’s Department in a way that we need for a successful continuation of the roll-out of universal credit?

Thirdly, on debt, on which the Secretary of State could decide today, debts of yesteryear are being found and charged to people on universal credit. The repayment of those debts is overwhelming people. I am not saying that people should not pay their debts, but do we not think that feeding one’s children, and ensuring the rent is paid and the heating is on, ought to be at least equal in importance to the repayment of debt? Might I therefore make a plea to the Secretary of State that she looks at the rules—not to scrap the repayment of debt, but the amount that is reclaimed—on debts that most of us will have forgotten?

[Ms McVey]

rose—

[Frank Field]

I give way willingly.

[Ms McVey]

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that. I want to reassure him. I have not been in post that long to get to grips with absolutely everything on UC, but debt and how it is repaid is precisely what I am focusing on at the moment.

[Frank Field]

That is wonderful news, but after the right hon. Lady has considered debt and decided on it there is the business about real-time information. This is not under her control as the information is supplied to her by another Department. It is not real and it is not on time, so perhaps she could look at that as the next item on the list. There is also the crucial business of universal support. I tried to claim, but I could not do it in the time. A lot of us need that support to make sure we can make a claim successfully. If we are going to work cross-party on this, there has to be give on the other side as well as on this side.

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

At the end of the letter it says that

“the Department cannot measure the exact number of additional people in employment ”.

We agree with that. We cannot measure the exact number of people in employment, but we knew that there was a plausible range—which we had had support on—of people going into employment. We also know that employment is increasing. Those were the key pertinent points from the letter, and obviously included with my apology yesterday for the phrasing of the words I got wrong—which I fully accept, which is why I came to the House—I will end that bit of the statement there.

[Frank Field]

We are grateful for the Secretary of State’s apology—again—for one aspect of her behaviour where the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised her for dissembling. There were two others. First, she told the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General had advised her to roll out faster, whereas he told her to pause so that vulnerable claimants would not be hit further. Secondly, that universal credit is working is not proven, as she said, with 40% of claimants finding themselves in financial difficulty, 25% unable to make a claim online, and 20% overall, but two thirds of disabled claimants, not being paid on time and in full, hence the demand of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a big regulator in this country, for her to pause the universal credit programme.

[Ms McVey]

We need to separate two parts of this. One bit is where I came myself to the House to apologise for using the wrong words. I used the words “faster rate” and “speeded up” on the premise that the report had said there was no practical alternative but to continue with universal credit and that there had been a regrettable slowing down. My interpretation of that was incorrect, which is why I came to the House yesterday and apologised for my words. We should separate that from the impact of the changes. I said—and I stand by this—that the impact of the changes could not have been felt because it was still being rolled out and those impacts were still being felt and therefore could not have been taken into account. We need to separate where I used the incorrect words, for which I came to the House to apologise, from the impacts of the changes and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the Secretary of State, whose answers I always enjoy. The only point that I would make, gently, to colleagues on both sides of the House is that we have a lot of questions to get through, so we do need to be briefer—and that is now to be exemplified by no less a figure in the House than Mr Frank Field.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State commission a report on real-time income, which for many of our constituents provides neither real-time information nor income and results in hardship, and publish that report?

[Ms McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We are looking constantly at real-time income—how it works and how it works best—and we continue to do that and put out new guidance when we know what is going on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I say gently to the Secretary of State that one must not refer to other Members by name. The right hon. Member for Islington North is the Leader of the Opposition, but he should not be referred to by name.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I ask the Secretary of State not to give an immediate reply to this question but to ponder it. The Secretary of State has told me that the 98 members of jobcentre staff on temporary contracts in Birkenhead are going to be laid off because they have come to the end of their contract period. Unlike Gloucester, we are having real problems with the roll-out of universal credit. I had five cases last week, including one involving a woman who had been reduced to living on 7p. Might not some, if not all, of those staff be redeployed to ensure a smooth transition from traditional benefits to the new one?

[Ms McVey]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman saying that I could speak to and work with him to see what is happening in Birkenhead. What I know is that we on this side of the House brought forward up to 100% advances, so that anyone in need of money could have it. We have also stopped the waiting days, and from April we are providing the two-week housing payment. That is what we on this side of the House have done to protect the most vulnerable, but the Opposition voted against it.

Motability

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is directed by true compassionate Conservative beliefs. The Government are bringing forward a new review and new law on corporate governance to cover all these matters. We want transparency—that is what will drive correct behaviour. We want accountability, and we want people to do the right thing. If that takes shining a sharper spotlight on their actions, then that is what we should do.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The Work and Pensions Committee will be undertaking an urgent inquiry into this issue. We will be seeking your support, Mr Speaker, so that we can co-opt my hon.—very honourable—Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on to our Committee to pursue the issue. As we are drawing up our agenda over the next few days, will the Secretary of State say which questions she would find most helpful for us to seek answers on?

[Ms McVey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I will meet him to decide between us, with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), which questions would be best to focus on.

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place and I welcome her statement. Given the size of the task before her, with up to 220,000 people affected, may I again press her to give some sort of timetable for meeting that objective? Might she start by writing to the oldest claimants first, and might she put a monthly report in the House of Commons Library on progress to that end?

[Ms McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman is another champion for these causes. As he suggests, this is a mammoth task, and I will be working with experts in the field and doing things as sympathetically and effectively as possible. I will listen to all the advice that he has offered me.

[Frank Field]

And can we have a monthly statement?

[Ms McVey]

I will do the best I can to adhere to the right hon. Gentleman’s requests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

4. What the average monthly value has been of benefit sanctions imposed since May 2010.

[Esther McVey]

The Department does not make an estimate of the amount of benefit withheld as a result of sanctions. The sanctions system is in place to ensure claimants comply with reasonable requirements in order to move off benefits and into work.

[Mr Field]

Although the Department might not make estimates, outside experts do, and they now calculate that the amount of sanctions applied is greater than all the fines that magistrates courts in this country impose, but a fine in a magistrates court is imposed only after someone has been able to put their case. Might not the Government consider something like a yellow card system so that before a fine is exercised, people have the chance to bring in outside advisers to help them put their case more effectively?

[Esther McVey]

The Government do not make estimates because they would be wildly inaccurate, like the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given. That is because only a maximum figure could be given that did not take into account hardship payments, which could be 80%, or that people already had a job, and there would be so many inconsistencies. The last Government—he was a Minister in the Department—did not make such estimates either.

Jobcentre Plus

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Thursday 10th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks into all the footnotes, everything associated and all the figures about what is expected by the end of the programme, he will find the numbers I cited. I can get the report out and go through it—I know that he has been flicking quickly to various points on his iPad, but I can give the full report because I went through it in quite some detail.

We are here to look at what Jobcentre Plus has been doing. It has carried out more than 25 million adviser interviews to help to prepare people for work. We talk about the scale; it is huge. Jobcentre Plus advertises 4 million job vacancies for around 390,000 employers. More than 97% of our JSA claims were processed within 16 days—an improvement of 10% from last year. The process of continual improvement that we talk about is happening.

We have reduced the average time taken to answer calls at our call centres from 4.55 minutes in 2012-13 to 1.07 minutes in 2013-14. According to our last survey, nine out of 10 employers were satisfied and a quarter were extremely satisfied with what we are doing. More than eight in 10 claimants on disability, carer or unemployment benefits report that they are satisfied with the DWP’s service. All that shows—

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

I am afraid that, because the right hon. Gentleman has just walked into the debate as I am giving my closing speech and has not heard from other Members, I cannot give way. There is only a limited amount of time, and since it is a three-hour debate, I have many questions to answer.

We have seen the complete modernisation of the Jobcentre Plus system. The system has been personalised and adapted to new technology. We have seen greater employer engagement—how do we get a tailor-made service so that a jobseeker really is ready to go into work? That is what we have tried to do.

When we talk about personalising the service and getting as many people as possible into jobs, one key thing that has come out is the claimant commitment. The claimant feels that they are in charge of the journey they are on and that the adviser can help them. I am pleased to say that more than 26,000 of our staff have received the required training and now all 714 jobcentres offer the service. That is helping 600,000 claimants who have signed the new agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman quotes an anonymous whistleblower, but I am the Minister replying and I am not anonymous. We do know what good cause is. For example, if there were confusion about someone going to a job interview who thought they should have been at Jobcentre Plus, that would be good cause, and if somebody had to go to a funeral of an immediate family member, that would be good cause, too. There is a list of various good causes. If it makes common sense, that has to be right and those people have to be looked after.

Of course, we are far from complacent and continue to look for ways to improve the system and ensure that sanctions are applied appropriately. Some improvements have already been made, including introducing a telephone line for providers to check whether a sanction is appropriate, and we have introduced a new quality assurance framework, to improve standards and consistency in decision making—that has to be key.

The Matthew Oakley review will make a significant contribution to our drive to improve the system. The scope of this review was JSA sanctions for claimants on mandatory back-to-work schemes, focusing on clarity of information and claimant understanding. He has been generally positive about the sanctions system and we welcome his recommendations, which we accept and which will, as I said, be with us before the end of this month.

We need to know where we are going and we are now focusing our attention on the hardest-to-help claimants. Record numbers of people are now in work—[Interruption.] I am glad the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is listening rather than laughing, because many extra people are in work in his constituency, too, and right across Wirral. However, we must concentrate our efforts.

[Mr Frank Field]

Will the Minister not answer my question, since she has now named me? Will she give way?

[Esther McVey]

I am afraid that I will not. I will continue with what we are doing.

[Mr Field]

We share a jobcentre, after all.

[Esther McVey]

We do, indeed.

We are concentrating on the hardest to help and focusing our efforts on them. As I have said, the Work programme is part of that and we have seen the results from the 1.5 million people who have gone on it: 550,000 have had a job start and 300,000 of those are in sustained jobs. Equally, our Help to Work programme is helping another 200,000 people, whom our coaches will be working with to assess their needs and refer them to further intensive support, whether daily signing or community work placement, to find out what limiting factors are not helping them into work. Is greater support needed? Is it about employability skills? Do they need more work skills? Those are the things that we are really trying to get to grips with, understand and reach out further on. Early trailblazing of this approach shows that continuing this support has a long-term positive impact on claimants. Participants spent less time on benefit and more time in work over a 21-month period.

Many questions have been asked. I shall answer some of those asked by the right hon. Member for East Ham. We have talked about good cause and personalisation, the claimant commitment and extra support, and about the whistleblowers. Yes, the Prime Minister met the Trussell Trust, as did I. I have also been to my local food bank. We will all agree—there is no doubt—that those organisations are doing a good job, supporting people, but we have to look at the bigger implications for society as a whole, which is why it was right that the Prime Minister met the Trussell Trust. We know that it was set up in what was regarded as a boom time, when things were going well, before 2007. That was back in 2002 and the organisation increased tenfold, just as it was setting up, up to 2010. It went to the then Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, asking, “Would you signpost?”, but the Labour Secretary of State said, “We will not”, because the Government did not want it growing even bigger and did not want to help people out, because it was growing on the ground. However, when it approached the Secretary of State in this Government, he said, “I will signpost people to those, if need be, because you need to help people as best you can.”

So many things come into play, as the people who run food banks say: understanding how to cook; prioritisation of bills; debt; and debt cards. So many things are tangled up with this issue that we have to educate and support people, as well as doing things right in an emergency. However, this Government and Jobcentre Plus are getting it right on taking the first step to get people out of poverty, by any standard and according to all parties in the House, because we are seeing record rates of people getting into work.

Universal Jobmatch Programme (Fraud)

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for securing this debate, so we can have clarity over Universal Jobmatch and about the many positive things that it is doing at the moment. If we look at the latest statistics and numbers of people getting into work, we see that this year annual employment has gone up to the highest level in 25 years, and this month we have had the biggest annual fall in long-term unemployment since 1998. The number of vacancies at any one time in the market has also gone up significantly, with 600,000 job vacancies at any one time.

I will try to answer as many of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions as I can here today. If I do not get to all of them, I will write to him with further answers, as he suggested. I thoroughly understand why he secured the debate. Although fraud in Universal Jobmatch is less than 0.1%, the one instance took place in his constituency.

I can confirm that the fraudulent account was closed and all the people affected were compensated. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the amount that was given; it was significant. Of course, there was the repayment of money for the Criminal Records Bureau check—£65—and yes, he mentioned £25 on top of that. Significantly, some of those people got up to £1,200, because it is about actual money lost as well as compensation—he will be pleased to hear that. I have the full list of people, what they have got and how we have recompensed them.

[Mr Field]

I welcome that information. As the Minister knows, in this case, Jobcentre Plus invited the fraudster in to have an office in the DWP, so one of my questions was what steps the Department takes to ensure that when it offers people office space in the Department, they are bona fide, as one would have thought they would be. What actions does the Department take to weed out fraudsters, who clearly do operate in the system?

[Esther McVey]

I will come to that. We have more than half a million businesses and 6.1 million claimants on the site, and nearly 5 million job searches a day. We know that there will be instances—it is less than 0.1%, as I said—where something goes wrong. What matters is how we deal with it, sort it out and compensate those people, as we did in this instance.

Things have changed considerably over the past 16 years. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, so he will know that. Every Jobcentre Plus, everybody who works there, and every adviser wants the best for their claimant. We have seen how things have changed significantly, from being paper-based to having job points—a quite clunky solution introduced by the previous Labour Government. Job points frequently did not work, were offline, and things could go wrong. I looked for the statistics for fraud during the Labour Government’s tenure, but it seems that they did not wish to keep those figures. Although we have anecdotal evidence that fraudulent and bad behaviour was common, and we know that that was regional, it seems that it may have been brushed under the carpet. I am not sure what was going on then, whereas we have full transparency of what goes on now, significantly so and obviously, because it is online, which is key.

If we think of the changes and transformations over the past 16 years, of course we have to be online. Google did not even exist 13 years ago. The technological advances are significant and not having people online would be wrong, given that 25% of all jobs are online only. We have to get the best service we can. However, by opening up those opportunities—by having more than 227% more vacancies online and 1,316 more employers online—we open up the possibility of fraud, and we have to clamp down on that significantly.

The timeline of what went on may help to explain some of the procedures and things that happened. The vacancy posted by Options 4 Families for a trainee child counsellor went up online on 9 December 2013. On 18 December, the DWP was notified by Monster, which asked whether it was right that we were asking for CRB checks. It was not a constituent coming in to say, “I have a problem here,” as they do through letters, e-mails, and by coming into surgeries. It was our own checks that came across the problem. Ten thousand manual checks are going on per month, and Monster does checks too, so things were looked at then. It was decided that that was fine and the vacancy went back up online, but it was brought back down again and closed on 20 December. It was probably online for about nine days. Only a month or so after that, it seems, the right hon. Gentleman came to us to discuss the matter. We had, however, already seen it, and we were dealing with it and getting in touch with those constituents. That goes to show the checks that are going on constantly, the support that is available and how we deal with things.

That is what is key. Why did Universal Jobmatch come into being? What did we have to do in 2012 to give us the best opportunities to help people into work in this day and age? How were we going to have an online system that actually helped people to look for work, matchmaking them 24/7 and not only during opening hours of 8 to 6, Monday to Friday? How could we have a system enabling people to upload a CV, to find more jobs and to know what is going on? Universal Jobmatch is the best possible solution: it is the largest website in the UK, with 5 million job searches every day on average, bringing employers and employees together and with a significant increase in the number of employers using it. That is key, too. We have to reach out to claimants, and we have to reach out to businesses and employers to ensure that they want to engage and play a part. We also have to help Jobcentre Plus staff, who want to know that they have the best possible equipment.

As we have seen, it is important that we close down any fraudulent behaviour. It is also important that we deal with other inappropriate vacancies. It is worth noting that there frequently seems to be confusion between fraudulent vacancies, which are entirely unacceptable, and the duplicate vacancies that we sometimes see and can arise for a variety of reasons. Often, if a vacancy appears more than once on the site, it is a result of an employer using multiple agencies or posting the opportunity by themselves in addition to using other avenues. That is an unavoidable feature of the open-access model that the service provides, and it must be seen in that context. There are significant opportunities but, equally, if such duplication should not have occurred—if people are posting a vacancy where they have no direct relationship with the employer, for example—the vacancy will be taken down.

We have to consider what Universal Jobmatch has brought to the arena. There is Monster and various other services, but Universal Jobmatch allows job advisers to help people find a job and to check that they are looking for work, which is also key. Equally, we can work with claimants through their claimant commitment and help them to use the service. We can also advise claimants. We take things such as data security very seriously and we give advice to our jobseekers on how to stay safe online when conducting a job search. That advice is published on the UJ website, and it is given to people in jobcentres in a leaflet, “Safety and Security when looking for work.” Claimants are also advised not to pay any fees up front for help with job searches, and they are advised not to reveal personal details such as their bank account number, national insurance number or date of birth. Such information should also not be included on their CV. We are giving such advice on a daily basis.

People can access extra support through the “contact us” button. They are asked whether the site is working adequately, and there is a most frequently asked questions page. There is also additional support. Jobcentre staff are able to help people as much as they can. All of that is key, but it is always evolving and changing. We have to ensure that we have the best service, and wherever anything goes wrong we have to clamp down and ensure that it does not happen again. Equally, when a local Member of Parliament brings the activities of a company to this House, it highlights exactly what we do to close down companies and see what has happened. It also shows how we have supported claimants to recoup their money, which is right. The system is constantly monitored, and we constantly survey what is and is not acceptable.

We have made considerable improvements to Universal Jobmatch. When it was first introduced, we ensured that it was easy to use, that people were getting used to it and that employers had confidence in it. Confidence is key, too: we have to ensure that people have confidence in the system. Of course, all those businesses have confidence and think that Universal Jobmatch is a great way to reach out and find employees. It is significant that 90% of businesses that use Universal Jobmatch are small and medium-sized enterprises. For them, it is a cheaper and more reliable way of finding somebody close to their business. People underestimate the service. More than ever before, the Government are reaching out to business and asking, “How can we support you? How can we get somebody employed? What training do they need? Do they need work experience? Do they need any extra support?” That is what we are doing, and Universal Jobmatch is part of that greater relationship. All I can say is that, with the significant increases in getting people into work, all of these things are working.

We have the ability to disable and delete non-essential cookies, and we have taken the ability to close down accounts. We are enabling jobseekers to re-access their Universal Jobmatch account securely when locked out. We have revised access groups to control the web admin for DWP. We are also listening to what claimants would like. They are saying that they would like to search by a keyword or skill; they would like to find work within a specific distance, postcode or ward; they would like to choose how many hours they have to travel; and they want to filter out vacancies already reviewed within the list of results. We are doing all of those things—constant monitoring, constant upkeep and constant development.

The system has revolutionised the way people look for work. It is enabling people to get into work, and it is allowing advisers to work more closely with claimants, but where things go wrong, it is right that that is brought to this House. In this case, the matter was sorted back in December before the right hon. Gentleman brought it to the House, but it is right that the matter is discussed openly so that we get the best possible result for claimants.

[Mr Frank Field]

If one was a Prime Minister looking for a totally trustworthy Minister to be in charge of our security service and to ensure that nothing of any comprehension could be learned about the service, today’s debate shows that we have a candidate to fill that role. I am as confused as I was when I came in about what actually goes on.

In the few minutes remaining, I have three very simple questions for the Minister. First, she said that 10,000 checks are undertaken. Why 10,000? What is the time span, and what are the results? Secondly, she said that the Government will hunt duplicates and take them down. Of the 24 jobs advertised as relevant for Birkenhead, 15 were duplicates. Who is responsible for taking down those jobs?

Thirdly, the Minister talked in general terms about having to clamp down. Who clamps down, and who is responsible for that? How many people? How often do they do it, given the number of people who put up jobs and depend on the results? I would be grateful for answers to those three questions.

[Esther McVey]

By way of example, I was showing how, before the right hon. Gentleman even knew about the incident in his constituency, we had found it, dealt with it and closed down the site, which shows that we have our own team working on it within the DWP. Monster’s team is working on it, and it was streets ahead of his good self, even though it is correct that he brought the matter to the House. Of course we have said that anyone who was put to any inconvenience, who paid out or who suffered any loss was paid, and the compensation on top of their loss was significant. For example, where a loss in actual terms was £750, there was £500 of compensation on top. I have the full list of all those who received payments, but trust me that we have worked closely with them. We did not want to be in that situation, and as I said less than 0.1% of people are in that position, but we have dealt with it. Equally, there are 1,002 full-time vacancies within a 20-mile radius of Birkenhead posted on Universal Jobmatch today.

As I said, where things go wrong, we correct them and sort them out, but I hope everyone can see that we have done that in this instance. When we look at the number of people, 11 came forward and wanted compensation, which we have resolved. When we see that 5 million people a day are doing a job search on the site, we can see how, for the overwhelming majority of people, it is a very good addition to the other things that they might be doing to search for work both by themselves and with their adviser.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

As somebody who supports Jobmatch, may I ask the Minister whether she shares my concern that some of our constituents have been ripped off by those who are acting fraudulently? What steps has she taken to safeguard this scheme, which most of us support?

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, is right in saying that 14 job- seekers —out of the millions a month who are looking for jobs through the scheme—were asked to pay for a Criminal Records Bureau check. The DWP is now working with them. Ten have put in for a compensation claim, and we are helping them to sort that out. If there is a bogus job or one that does not adhere to the terms and conditions on Universal Jobmatch, it is removed immediately. However, despite that one company, more than half a million companies are putting jobs up on the scheme to help people into work. I think we can all say that this is a resounding success.

Wirral Borough Council

Debate between Esther McVey and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Miss Clark. I want to give an apology for my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who has just given birth to a lovely baby girl and obviously cannot be here today. However, she was very much part of a meeting two Saturdays ago, when Members saw the chief executive of Wirral borough council, and is committed to the conversation that we want to have with the Minister today and the strategy we want to lay out. I thank the Minister for finding time for yet another debate, but we want to draw on his considerable experience on how to move forward.

There has recently been a great deal of local coverage about the politics of our authority, but today’s debate examines the more fundamental matter of the administration of the authority. I believe that, although it does not have the razzmatazz that attaches to going on about politicians, it is much more important for the long-term well-being of residents. I shall in essence concentrate on governance in the local authority, which covers the Wirral peninsula, and cite examples of senior officers wilfully excluding councillors from the decisions that they have taken and the lack of good basic governance, which has surprised me. Indeed, if I were the leader of Wirral borough council—heaven forbid that that task should ever be allotted to me—I would assume that certain basic rules and governance would be in place. I have been shocked at their absence.

I shall give two examples of that failure. I have recently been involved in a whistleblowing case over Wirral’s biggest contract—in money terms—for the maintenance of the road system. At the meeting with the whistleblowers and the senior officers in Wirral, I was amazed that the council did not know the date when the whistle was first blown on what was happening. We were in the bizarre situation of the chief officers having to ask whistleblowers when they made their first complaint. It was reminiscent of Pasternak’s wonderful book “Dr Zhivago”, when the Bolsheviks were furious not at the suggestion that they killed Lara, which they willingly admitted, but at the accusation that they were inefficient and did not know where they had killed her. There is an element of that in Wirral’s not knowing the most basic information that it could be expected to know, particularly in the matter of whistleblowing.

We discovered, also at the very first meeting with the whistleblowers and senior officers, that there were no rules in place—although I thought that they were automatic for all local authorities—setting out when officers, particularly senior officers, must declare an interest in any contract that they were recommending to the council. In the case of the Colas contract, the interest was declared retrospectively, but at no point in the later stages of the council proceedings did the chief officer draw the councillors’ attention to the fact that he had made a late submission of interest and that they might want to bear that in mind when reading the papers before them.

I also want to speak about three major initiatives that the council could have taken, for which the Government were putting up taxpayers’ money. By the crass inefficiency of the chief officers, nothing happened. The first initiative related to a contract to do with Rock Ferry, the area where I live in Birkenhead. Of course, there are some parts of Birkenhead that will be grand enough to be on a par with the Minister’s constituency. Indeed, parts of the constituency, as the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) will know, would make Hampstead look positively downmarket. However, other areas of the Wirral are really hard pressed. Therefore, Governments’ attempts to redirect resources to us are immensely important, because of the possibility of opening up opportunities to people who are poor and would otherwise be denied them.

First, there was a contract of £5 million for Rock Ferry; English Estates was offering that to us to kick-start development. One of the senior officers just could not be bothered, or was not efficient enough, to get the contract in on time. In that year, English Estates had overspent, so it could not believe its luck that Wirral council was so inefficient and the £5 million grant that would have come to us, which would have kick-started redevelopment in Rock Ferry, would not now be made. That is the first of the appalling errors of administration that I am concerned about.

The second error is to do with the contract to upgrade and undertake a long-term rental agreement for the Cheshire Lines building in Birkenhead. That contract has cost the council £11 million. It did not have the full authority of the council, and it received a pretty horrendous report from the district auditor. The contract related to a building that the council did not own, although it owned—and still does, thank goodness— Birkenhead town hall, and the money could have been spent on the town hall, to bring the accommodation up to standard. The call centre work that the council wanted to do in the Cheshire Lines building could have been transferred to one of its own buildings. What happened was discovered only because a member of staff reported to councillors that major work for which no authority had been given was being undertaken in the Cheshire Lines building. Again, councillors were informed by sources outside the authority, not by the officers.

The third of my examples concerns the attempt to win a new academy building for the lower half of my constituency. Over two successive years, attempts were made by the previous Government to get the children and young people’s officer to make a proper application for a rebuilt academy. Thanks to an inquiry by the previous Government, we were reorganising secondary education in Wirral, and it was recommended that two schools should be combined. The first offer made by the authorities was years before the general election and it was for a new build. We were invited to bid up to £40 million. In the first year, the application was not in on time. In the second year—the year running up to the general election—again, the council failed to deliver the plans to the Department for Education, which would have allowed us to get a totally rebuilt academy. Instead of that, one school is closed and children travel miles to the second school, which has now had to take on the role of the main academy site.

A little adding up brings a figure of almost £60 million of squandered opportunities. I have been the Member of Parliament for a little over 30 years now. If we think about the effect on the rates, we realise that an extra 2p off the rates has been lost by the incompetence of a small group of chief officers.

I shall not go into the details of two other current controversies that are before the council: a major inquiry into how the whistleblower Martin Morton has been treated and the report by the auditor that is due by, I hope, Friday on how the Colas contract has been dealt with.

On the Martin Morton report, the name of a councillor trips on to one page and then falls off almost immediately, but the report is about the quality of and the judgment displayed by the senior officers of Wirral borough council in that case. That is not of course to excuse the politicians, because they are in charge of the political machinery of this country, but it was a damning report on the actions and the quality of a group of chief officers.

We await the publication of the Colas report on Friday. It will again emphasise how chief officers have behaved. I went through the piles of paper that the whistleblowers gave me on the decision about the Colas contract. I like reading and it is obviously part of my job, but I could not have found out what might have been going on without the help of the whistleblowers. The papers were presented to the council in a way in which the most diligent of the councillors would have found it very hard to understand what was behind them.

I turn to the Minister and ask him for help, and I do so with an example fresh in my mind. After the debacle over the non-new build of the academy, I asked if I could chair the governors. That was after the academy had been established, and I was presented with some very real problems, about which I sought legal advice. I phoned the two senior people in the Young People’s Learning Agency and in the Department for Education to tell them what I was doing and to seek their advice. Their advice was that, as I had one of the best lawyers in the business, I should follow the lawyer’s advice. In doing so and starting that procedure, however, I could not talk to anyone, least of all those in the Department.

At the end of the process, when an agreement was struck and signed at 5 pm on a Friday, I phoned the two senior people in the Department and, within an hour and a half, I was given four candidates to interview. They had just retired and had been very successful—outstanding—leaders of their schools or colleges. On the Monday, we were therefore able to have someone in place, if only temporarily, for the following two terms. I was surprised by the quickness of that and the quality of the advice.

The plea that I know all Wirral Members wish to make to the Minister is to ask him to see them to discuss what action he has the power to take to help us make real progress in getting quality leadership in the Wirral, of which we are proud.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, which is the tip of the iceberg of what has happened in Wirral for the past 10 years. He mentioned the Anna Klonowski report. We have also had two reports made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We have had the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government step in about the libraries. A lot has gone wrong there, but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that for politicians to sidestep their responsibilities and hand over the blame to officers is political cowardice at its worst and that the people who were responsible and were leading the council should take the blame that is attributable to them?

[Mr Field]

The Minister will know that I am probably the last person to think that politicians should not stand up, take the blame and defend their quarter. In no way do I wish to counter what the hon. Lady has said but, even if we deal with that issue, we have a real problem about the quality of our chief officers. She knows who I am speaking about in this debate. I have not wished to claim privilege and name them, because I do not want that sort of press campaign; I want us to be able to think carefully about what help we might seek from outside so that, whatever political changes occur, we can be proud of the administration in the Wirral. I have clearly fingered two officers in my speech, because their fingerprints are over the issues that I have raised.

If at all possible, I want to advance this matter by seeking support to bring about decisive change, as we received at the academy from the relevant Department. I hope that this will therefore be the last debate that we will have to hold in Parliament about the running of Wirral authority and the last time that we have to raise the sort of examples about the role of politicians that were cited by the hon. Lady. I shall make way for the Minister, but I end on this note: we need his and the Department’s help, because we will clearly not make the changes to our senior officers without outside help.