Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Statutory sick pay provides a minimum level of income for employees who are unable to work. We have made temporary changes to support people to follow public health advice on coronavirus.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
At £95.85 a week, the level of statutory sick pay is just too low, and it excludes 2 million of those on the lowest pay. To qualify for the Government’s test and trace support payment, people need to be receiving social security payments like universal credit; according to the Resolution Foundation, seven out of eight workers will not qualify for it. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who are ineligible for either statutory sick pay or the test and trace support payment? Will they commit to increasing the level of statutory sick pay and extend it to everyone, including the low-paid and the self-employed?
Justin Tomlinson
Those required to stay at home by NHS Test and Trace could be eligible for the additional £500 of financial support if they are on UC, working tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit or pension credit, and that is just part of our wider targeted welfare safety net.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
Last year, administrative errors in UC fell from 2.3% to 2.1% in respect of wrong payments. We recognise that this is still a relatively new system, and we will continue to work with claimants, charities and stakeholders to make sure that UC can continue to offer personalised, tailored support to unlock all people’s potential.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The day after the general election, the Government had the audacity to sneak out the fact that more than 650,000 disabled people lost out financially when transferring from the disability living allowance to PIP, which is 46% of all former DLA complaints. This should not be swept under the carpet, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Government have cut support for more than half a million disabled people?
Justin Tomlinson
The reality is that under PIP 32% of claimants now receive the highest rate of support compared with just 15% under the legacy system—that is worth £15.05 per week—and there are now 257,228 more people benefiting from PIP than did so under the legacy system.
Personal Independence Payments: Supreme Court Ruling
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who did so much in this role before me and is widely respected across the House. She is right to highlight how much more is done in terms of training. I am grateful for the support of the stakeholders who helped to shape that training. One of the biggest improvements is that we now have a mental health champion in each PIP assessment centre who can support claimants who may be more anxious when they arrive to make sure that their experience is as positive as can be.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court should act as a serious wake-up call for the Government.
According to Mind, more than 425,000 people with conditions classed as psychiatric disorders have been turned down for PIP. What percentage of those people would have been successful in the light of this judgment? Will the Minister be clear that the Government will look again at those cases where people have been turned down?
The assessment framework for PIP is not fit for purpose and has created a hostile environment for disabled people. After the ruling, Mind commented:
“Far too many are struggling to claim benefits they need because of draconian assessments, which often fail to take fully into account the impact a mental health problem can have.”
Does the Minister agree? Many people with mental health problems can feel socially isolated, so surely the Government should be providing a system that supports people in need.
It was revealed recently that more than 60,000 appeals against the tests for PIP ruled against the Government in 2018. That is 72% of all tribunals. Clearly this is wholly unjust. The fact that such a high proportion of PIP assessments are overturned on appeal speaks volumes about the failings of the Government’s record when it comes to providing support to disabled people. Ill and disabled people should not have to fight through the courts to receive the support that they are entitled to. Ministers at the Ministry of Justice recently revealed that the Government spent £26.5 million in 2018 on PIP hearings that ruled against the Department. The Minister must surely also be aware that the introduction of PIP has ended up costing the taxpayer more than the system it replaced, so will he commit today to scrapping the cruel and discredited PIP assessment framework and replacing it with one that treats disabled people with the respect they deserve and provides them with the support they need?
Justin Tomlinson
To repeat: we do welcome the judgment. It was the Government who referred this matter to the Supreme Court to get clarity. Across society, there is a deeper understanding of mental health, and that is welcome. This is not an exact science, but it is one of the few areas where there is cross-party support as, together, we get a better understanding of how to identify and support people with mental health conditions. This will be a complex exercise, and we will need to work carefully through the detail of the judgment before we start the exercise of checking claims. We are committed to doing that as soon as we can, working with disabled people and stakeholders, so that we can pay people as quickly as possible. I remind the hon. Lady that we are committed to supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions. We are now spending £10 billion more than when we came into office in 2010 on supporting people with long-term health conditions and disabilities. This represents a record high of 6% of Government spending, and we are committed to seeing that rise in every single year for the rest of this Parliament.
On the specific point of appeals, we know that the vast majority of successful appeals are because of additional written and oral evidence, but we recognise that the independent appeal process is too long and that it adds anxiety for claimants who are in too many cases having those decisions changed over. We are therefore determined to improve the mandatory reconsideration stage so that we can proactively contact claimants to get that additional written and oral evidence at that point. We have already piloted this in all the PIP mandatory reconsideration assessment centres, and that has been so encouragingly positive that we will do the same with the work capability assessment mandatory reconsiderations. This is a really important area of work, and we are determined to get it right for all claimants as quickly as possible.
Universal Credit Fraud
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who works tirelessly in this area. This is yet another example of a really helpful, constructive and proactive suggestion. I know the Secretary of State is very keen to see that brought forward, so that is a big yes from us. In terms of raising awareness, we are increasing training and guidance for frontline staff. Working in partnership with Action Fraud, we will be doing further national and regional press releases, social media and stakeholder engagement to raise awareness of the potential risk of fraud and of how to report it as quickly as possible.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Government claimed that universal credit would reduce social security fraud and error by £1.3 billion. Now we know that they are clearly failing to do that, just as they are failing to protect people from poverty. The Government’s own figures show that the rate of fraud in universal credit is far higher than the rate of fraud in the benefits it is replacing. According to the BBC, fraudulent applications for advances are leaving claimants scammed and at risk of destitution, costing millions of pounds of public money.
Labour Members have repeatedly highlighted the hardship that the five-week wait for an initial payment causes, pushing many people into debt and rent arrears or forcing them to turn to food banks to survive. The Government’s stock answer is that people can apply for advances—indeed, on 28 March, the Secretary of State said that he felt the system of advances was working well. What does she think of it now?
When the National Audit Office highlighted delays in paying people last year, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor claimed that they were largely due to the need to verify identity. In June 2018, she said:
“Verification is a necessary part of any benefits system…We need to make sure we are paying the right people the right amount of money.”
How is it, then, that advances have been made to claimants with names such as Lisa Simpson, Bart Simpson and Homer Simpson?
Will the Minister tell the House how much the Government estimate this fraudulent activity is costing the taxpayer? How does that cost compare with the cost of abolishing the five-week wait? What action are the Government now taking to make sure they verify correctly the identity of people who request an advance? What action are the Government taking to support claimants in financial hardship who have clearly been the victim of a scam?
It is clear from this report that advances are not the answer to the five-week wait; they are loans that have to be paid off by claimants—in this case, the victims of scams. The Government must finally listen to the evidence and stop the roll-out of universal credit.
Justin Tomlinson
I am afraid there was a bit of a muddle, mixing the difference between the verification process with advance payments and the main claims for universal credit. As a Government, we take the issue of fraud, error and overpayments seriously. We anticipate that by the time we have full roll-out of universal credit, there will be a reduction of over £1 billion.
Justin Tomlinson
Be patient. I am answering the questions. I can only address one point at a time.
The legacy benefits system was complex. Claimants had to deal with local authorities, HMRC and the DWP. The majority of welfare issues that led to fraud, error or overpayment related to failing to provide information on changes of circumstances. Under the legacy benefits, there was an increased likelihood that people would fail to report changes of circumstances. Universal credit, however, with a single point of contact on a digital interface, makes it easier for claimants to report changes once, and it is easier for us to proactively identify when there are changes. The Government are still on target to see, with the full roll-out of universal credit, a reduction of £1 billion.
We talk about the principle of advance payments, but remember that under legacy benefits at the end of the claim the payment came too soon. We saw that claimants would in many cases be going into work, having spent a long time out of work, being anxious. They were often paid in arrears at work, so would not have access to funding. People who were desperate to work and do the right thing were financially unable to do so. Under universal credit the wait for the money is at the beginning, but with advance payments to bridge that wait. That is vital to ensuring that claimants can transition into work. As I said in my earlier response, it is the need to balance making advances available to claimants quickly and ensuring that payments are paid based on the correct circumstances.
The shadow Secretary of State raised a point about children. When verifying advance payments, we will verify identity, bank accounts, national insurance and, where they are declared a non-UK national, nationality. However, to make sure we can provide support to those who are often the most vulnerable people in society, there is manual checking of housing and children. That is the bit that can take time beyond when we have issued the advance payment, although it would be checked before the actual main claim. As I have said, by using greater access to real-time information and data matching, we will be able to speed up that process to improve confidence that all claimants for advanced payments are valid.
Severe Disability Premium
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on support for people formerly receiving severe disability premium who have transferred to universal credit.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Universal credit is the biggest change in the welfare system since it was created. It is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit reflecting the rapidly changing world of work. When designing universal credit, a choice was made not to replicate every aspect of the disability provision in the legacy system.
However, I want to make it very clear that our intention was that no money from this area would be taken out of the system. Universal credit was therefore designed with all the money from the old disability premium recycled to target support on the most severely disabled. Disabled people are some of the biggest beneficiaries of universal credit, with around 1 million disabled households having on average around £100 a month more on universal credit than they would have had on the legacy benefits.
On Friday, the High Court handed down a judgment in relation to universal credit and the severe disability premium. The severe disability premium is an additional premium payable with mean-tested benefits such as employment and support allowance. Universal credit is more targeted, and support is focused on those who need it most. Transitional protection will be available for people who are moved on to universal credit from other benefits, provided their circumstances stay the same.
We are pleased that the court recognises that it is for Ministers to frame the appropriate transitional arrangements for moving claimants on to UC, and we will consider all our options. The Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that supports disabled people.
Margaret Greenwood
On 7 June, the Government pledged that severe disability premium claimants would no longer have to transfer to universal credit until managed migration started. Yet for months afterwards, the claimants were still required to do so—until the Government finally introduced a statutory instrument, which came into force on 16 January.
Severe disability premium does not exist in universal credit, so, in transferring, those claimants lost about £180 a month. Often, that was just because they moved home; their postcode changed, but their needs did not. Yet the Government planned to pay them only £80 a month in compensation—far less than they would have received if they were to transfer under managed migration. It is little wonder that the High Court said in its damning judgment on Friday that the Government’s decision had no logical foundation! Payments to former SDP claimants are part of the regulations for the managed migration pilot. The Government have still not scheduled these for debate, so no payments at all have been made; the judgment throws the Government’s plans for the pilot into question, too.
Will the Government ensure that payments to former SDP claimants who have transferred to universal credit fully reflect the loss they have suffered? How many SDP claimants in total transferred to universal credit before 16 January? What assessment have the Government made of the hardship that former SDP claimants who have transferred to universal credit are suffering, and of the impact on children who have had to take on additional care responsibilities as a result of their families’ loss of income? Will the Government publish a clear timeframe to identify and compensate disabled people for the losses that they have incurred? Will the Government separate regulations for the payments to former SDP claimants from those for the pilot for managed migration, so that Members of this House can vote on each separately?
By definition, these people are already having to cope with some of the most severe medical conditions and with disabilities. They should not have to fight through the courts for the support to which they should be entitled. They deserve better.
Justin Tomlinson
To reiterate, we have not taken any money out of the system. We are, rightly, targeting support at those who need it the most. For example, under legacy benefits, those on employment and support allowance would have expected to get £160.05 a month, but under universal credit it is significantly higher—in fact, more than double, at £336.20 a month. That is why over 1 million households with disabled people will on average be over £100 a month better off.
That goes hand in hand with our attempts to simplify the system. We are taking seven disability premiums down to two. The legacy system was difficult to deliver, prone to error and often confusing. Under the legacy system, over £2.4 billion of benefits went unclaimed every year. Some 700,000 of the most vulnerable people were, on average, missing out on £280 a month.
In addition to this support, many claimants will be entitled to support with personal independence payment, disability living allowance, attendance allowance or adult social care. Those going through the managed migration will get full transitional protection. We went further with good intentions by introducing the gateway on 16 January, including for those with changed circumstances. We will be considering all options in the light of the judgment and we will update the House in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Next year, the benefit freeze will leave the poorest 20% of families with children £900 worse off on average. In January, the Secretary of State said that the benefit freeze was the right policy at the time, but both she and the Chancellor have signalled that it will not be renewed in 2020. If it is not the right policy now, why are the Government continuing with the freeze for another year?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady continues to object to any measures to restore fairness to the benefits system. Under the last Labour Government, we saw welfare spending increase by £84 billion and an additional tax burden of £3,000 per hard-working household. This is about fairness and supporting people, while having a good safety net for those most in need.
Application of the Family Test
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, in this very calm and sensible week for Parliament. I am sure all eyes will be focused on this very important debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing the debate. He has an exceptional track record in this important area; it is a real credit to the work he has done that he has so much support from the colleagues who attended the debate. I pay tribute to his work alongside the noble Baroness Eaton with the Centre for Social Justice, which culminated in its recent report on the family test. That excellent piece of work was a really good way to focus minds—not just in my Department, but across Government. I will go into more detail about that.
I also thank all the other Members who contributed, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I will cover many of the questions raised, but let me say two quick things before I forget. I would be delighted, diary and parliamentary duties permitting, to attend the family hub event, so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton to make sure I have all the details of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives has done fantastic work as an MP to support those with special educational needs, using his wealth of experience from his work prior to arriving in the House. I recognise his point about supporting families with special educational needs children.
I pay tribute to one of my local special educational needs schools, the Uplands School, which has made a very small change that could easily be adopted by all schools and is making a huge difference. Like all schools, it has parental support classes, which offer peer-to-peer support—parents get together over cups of tea and talk about the challenges they are facing and how they can support one another. The headteacher, Jackie Smith, has ensured that parents get an invite to those support classes once they know their children will end up at the school, rather than having to wait until the day they come. That ensures that peer support is provided from the very early days, which is making a huge difference.
We also had a contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who perhaps stretched the intention of the debate—most of her comments were probably better suited to a Home Office debate. I am sure there will be opportunities for Home Office Ministers to respond in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for welcoming the principle of the family test. I appreciate that, but she then applied a series of political statements loosely to the principles of the family test. It would be remiss of me not to correct some of the points she made. For example, under this Government there are now 500,000 fewer families on the housing waiting list. Food affordability—the measure of whether families can afford the basics in terms of food—has almost halved in just under five years and is 2.5% lower than the EU average. Material deprivation has never been lower. Income inequality has fallen under this Government, having risen under the last Labour Government. There are now 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty. Welfare spending under the last Labour Government—
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady was not willing to take interventions from colleagues who actually stuck to the principles of the debate, so I will not.
Under the last Labour Government, welfare spending rose on average by £3,000 per house. Imagine the impact on hard-working families.
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of widowed parent’s allowance to surviving unmarried partners with children is incompatible with the law, in upholding the appeal of Siobhan McLaughlin, who lived with her partner, John Adams, and their four children for 23 years until John died in January 2014. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I pay tribute to Siobhan McLaughlin and her family for their courage in pursuing this important case. Unmarried bereaved parents should not be subject to discrimination because of their marital status; to put it simply, their children’s needs are the same. The Supreme Court said:
“The financial loss caused to families with children by the death of a parent...is the same whether or not the parents are married or in a civil partnership.”
The financial support provided by the state can be vital to a family who are already grieving for their loss and who may also be facing financial hardship because of diminished income.
The judgment relates to legislation in Northern Ireland, but unmarried couples are ineligible for widowed parent’s allowance in the rest of the UK as well, so the principle established by the Supreme Court has wider implications. Bereaved parents are already contacting support organisations, such as the Childhood Bereavement Network, to ask for guidance in the light of the judgment.
The Minister said that the Government are considering the Court’s judgment and how the Department should proceed, but this judgment did not come out of the blue. In March 2016, the Work and Pensions Committee warned the Government that they could be forced to change their policy as a result of this specific case. The Select Committee’s “Support for the bereaved” report, published in March 2016, clearly expressed the view that excluding unmarried couples was wrong. It said:
“Penalising children on the grounds of the marital status of their parents is unjust.”
So what assessment has the Department made of the cost of bringing the legislation on eligibility for widowed parent’s allowance into line with the Supreme Court judgment in the whole of the UK? What assessment has the Department made of the number of families who made a claim for widowed parent’s allowance that was denied because the parents were not married?
The Minister said that restricting eligibility to those in a legal union has been a consistent feature of bereavement support in order to protect and clarify the entitlement. However, although unmarried couples were treated differently when it came to making a claim for widowed parent’s allowance, that does not apply when it comes to the Department ending their claim, because if the surviving partner cohabits with a new partner their claim is ended, just as it would be if they remarried or entered a civil partnership. The Minister said that it was for Parliament to change the law, and he referred to the vote in 2014. That led to the Government introducing the bereavement support payment in April 2017 to replace widowed parent’s allowance and two other bereavement benefits. Yet they decided to continue to exclude unmarried couples, even though both Members in this place and voluntary organisations working in the field called for eligibility to be extended to them. The Department for Work and Pensions itself estimated that 75% of bereaved families with children would receive less support under the new system.
The Government claimed that they were motivated not by the desire to save money but by the need to “modernise” financial support for bereaved families in order to better reflect society. According to the Office for National Statistics, cohabiting couples are the second largest family type and the fastest growing. The number of cohabiting couples has more than doubled, from 1.5 million in 1996 to 3.3 million in 2017, and the percentage of dependent children living in cohabiting couple families increased from 7% in 1996 to 15% by 2017. When the Government introduced the bereavement support payment to “modernise” support, why did they not extend eligibility to unmarried couples? What message does that send to those children about how they are valued by this Government?
Will the Government now act to bring bereavement support payment into line with the principle established by the Supreme Court that bereaved children should not be disadvantaged because of their parents’ marital status? The purpose of financial support by the state for bereaved families is to try to ensure that, as far as possible, families struggling with grief at the loss of a parent or partner should not have to face the additional worry of how they will manage financially. That should surely apply to families regardless of whether the parents were married or not, as the Supreme Court said last week.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for her response. As I said in my statement, the Court cannot change primary legislation, and many of the points she raises are the very ones we will be considering, including the potential impacts of any changes that could happen. I will happily update the House on those once we have had the chance to consider them fully.
Many of the other points raised were at the heart of the principles of why we brought forward the new bereavement payments process: it is far simpler and it is a quicker process. We did consider the point about cohabitation, but this is not straightforward, as was extensively debated during the discussions around the time of the Pensions Act 2014, particularly as the regulations were brought forward. That makes this a complex process, because it can be open to interpretation, leading to delays and additional burdens for claimants, particularly at a time of distress. Any extension could trigger multiple claims; a bereaved person may have been legally married to one person but living with a new partner, who would therefore become eligible.
The hon. Lady talked about the new proposals for families with children, but I will challenge her back on that, because the new system is easier and quicker, and the payment is in addition to other household income. It is not taxed or means-tested, and it is not applied to the benefit cap. These are all keys areas that help those with the lowest income, as the principle was based on fairness. We also widened support so that anyone of working age would qualify and younger spouses and civil partners without children would get support. Specifically for those bereaved with children, an additional £1,500 was paid as the first lump sum. In some cases, those families could be eligible for additional benefits, whether through universal credit, child benefit, tax credits or the funeral expenses payment.
Employment for People with Disabilities
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who is one of the most proactive MPs in supporting our initiatives. He is a real credit to his constituency.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) about the Green Paper; I will come back to that later. He and others raised the issue of Motability cars; we have increased the number of people accessing the Motability scheme by 22,000. I reassure him that Parkinson’s UK, who I met again yesterday, and Leonard Cheshire are two major stakeholders who are very much involved in the work we are doing.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned the Resolution Foundation report. I attended and spoke at the launch, and the foundation has asked some important questions and has made its own suggestions and recommendations, which can be considered in the Green Paper.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on stepping up to be my shadow today. As I said, we are increasing funding. The work capability assessment is not perfect. It was introduced by the Labour Government, who made tweaks to it themselves. The coalition Government made tweaks and we have tried to make tweaks. We all accept that it has to change; that is a given, and we will look at that in the Green Paper. It is important to remember that the personal independence payment is not work-related—it is separate. It is ESA that is work-related. On the change from the disability living allowance to PIP, only 16.5% of claimants accessed the highest rate of benefit under the DLA; under PIP the figure is 22.5%. As a benefit, the PIP is far better at accessing the most vulnerable in society and providing them with adequate support.
Access to Work helped 37,000 people last year. I understand that, as an absolute number, that is a relatively small percentage, but we must remember that not everybody on Access to Work has a lifetime award—sometimes it is a one-off adjustment or an occasional adjustment—so the scheme actually helps far more than that. We have had confirmation of an increase in funding for an additional 25,000 places, and we are actively doing all we can to let small and medium-sized businesses in particular, which are responsible for 45% of jobs, know about the scheme. I will come to Disability Confident, and I have already covered the disability advisers.
The Government are committed to halving the disability employment gap. That was announced personally by the Prime Minister, which gives me some extra bargaining tools when I talk to other Departments, to the public sector and to the private sector. Disability Confident is an important part of that. Some 690 organisations have now signed up; we are making changes to the scheme, with greater asks of larger employers in particular, and are recruiting more than 100 organisations a month now, so it is beginning to accelerate quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made the very powerful point that employers are nervous and we need to build trust. That is absolutely right. Disability Confident is part of that process, with signposting and sharing best practice, along with reverse jobs fairs, which I am encouraging all MPs to get involved in, particularly those who are most critical of the Government. They can do their bit to be proactive and host their own reverse jobs fairs. The way it works is that I got 22 local organisations in my constituency—the sorts that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives highlighted in his examples—into a room. Working with local media, I got more than 70 small and medium-sized businesses that were looking to recruit people to come into that room and say, “These are the skill gaps that we’ve got.” We introduced them to those organisations and lots of job outcomes came from that.
Building on that, we decided to carry out a pilot of small employer officers, who literally doorstepped local employers and, over a cup of tea, discussed the huge hidden talent that could be matched to those employers’ skills gaps. Those pilots have been really successful, and I am pushing hard for them to be rolled out nationally, as part of the summer Budget funding. Working with the disability advisers in the jobcentre and all the support organisations, whether national providers or local charities, we can get the busy small and medium-sized businesses that are lacking confidence and knowledge of the talent that is out there, and hook them together.
That is crucial, because I have seen so many disabled people who are playing by the rules, engaging with the Work programme, the Work Choice programme or the different charities, and doing their bit to find work. Without opportunities at the end of that, they will continue to loop round the system, getting ever less confident and ever further away from the jobs market. Everything we do has to be underlined by matching that up to employers. I am really excited by what a difference that can make, and I have seen from working with employers how tangible that difference can be.
Learning disabilities were at the heart of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. Those with a learning disability have a 6% chance of having a meaningful and sustainable career. As a group, they are the furthest away from the jobs market. All Governments of all political persuasions have tried and have tweaked, but have not budged that figure.
I recently visited Foxes Academy near Bridgwater, which had set up an old hotel. In their town, the opportunities are in hotels, restaurants and care homes, so those are the skills they provide for their young adults—the equivalent of sixth form—as well as teaching skills for independent living. In their third year, students go and have a supported year in industry, after which 80% of them remain in work, of which 45.6% are in paid work. Even the conservative figure of 45.6% is so much better than 6%.
I challenge officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to say “The Government are committed to 3 million more apprenticeships. Why are we not doing more to open them up, particularly to those with learning disabilities?” We set up a taskforce, which has now concluded, and we will shortly be announcing its recommendations. If we can open up access to those 3 million places, that will make a huge difference.
The Green Paper is a priority for the Government. It is well supported by stakeholders, who understand that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives set out so clearly, when we use their experience and knowledge, we can make real and good decisions. But it cannot be rushed; we have to do it as and when we get all the right questions answered and the right information. It will come this year and will be done in the right and proper manner with the full support of the stakeholders who I regularly engage with.
We will continue to work with the jobcentre network to upskill. Universal credit will give individuals the opportunity, for the first time, to have a named coach who will support them both in getting into work and once they are in work. I am proud of our record: 360,000 more disabled people in work in the last two years. It is right that local best practice should be integral to that.
Justin Tomlinson
I need to conclude, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives time for his final remarks.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Margaret Greenwood(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
As someone who ran my own business for 10 years, I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent the very best of luck. The Government have helped over 28,000 people through the new enterprise allowance, and through the Access to Work scheme specific training and specialist support can be provided to people with disabilities.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
T6. When is the Minister’s Department going to publish a full analysis of the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on the proportion of children living in child poverty as defined by the Child Poverty Act 2010?