Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

We have to ensure that there is a wide range of options in rural areas. A number of trials are under way to provide solutions, underpinned by the investment in gigabit infrastructure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday, which will ensure that we have even better connectivity in remote rural areas.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the adequacy of funding allocated to tackling rough sleeping.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sajid Javid)]

The Government remain committed to ending rough sleeping. That is why I announced £54 million of new funding to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping in last month’s spending round, following on from discussions with my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary, which will take total resource funding to £422 million next year.

[Neil Coyle]

It has been revealed today that two rough sleepers died on the streets every day last year. The Government committed to halving rough sleeping by 2022, but their own guesstimate is that it fell by only 74 people last year, not the 500 required for them to be on target. That puts them three decades behind schedule, so when will the Treasury provide councils and homelessness charities with sufficient funds to properly tackle this national shame?

[Sajid Javid]

This is an important issue, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it today. He will know that there are multiple causes of rough sleeping, which means that we need action across Government. That is why the Government have set out a rough sleeping initiative to deal with the causes, such as mental health, family breakdown and addictions. I think he will appreciate that we need cross-Government work. That needs to be properly funded. The £422 million that I referred to a moment ago is a 13% real-terms increase, and it will end rough sleeping by 2022.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well done.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of the freeze on benefits on the level of personal debt of benefit recipients.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The decision to freeze most working-age benefits for four years from 2016-17 was one of a number of difficult financial decisions that were taken, but to assist claimants who are affected by debt, the Government announced, as part of the 2018 Budget package, a reduction from 40% to 30% in the maximum rate at which deductions can be made from universal credit awards. That change will help 290,000 claimants.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for his reply. This morning, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited Charles Dickens Primary School in my constituency to talk to parents, children and teachers about the impact that the benefits freeze and other welfare cuts have had on local families, many of whom have been pushed into debt, poverty and destitution as a direct result of Government policy. Will the Government listen to the Select Committee and lift the benefits freeze one year early?

[John Glen]

The Government have been very responsive to representations over the last two Budgets. There are 637,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010. We made a number of interventions in the last Budget to increase the availability of interest-free advance loans to those who need them. We are listening, and continue to listen, to the concerns of the sector.

Homelessness among Refugees

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those points will be the thrust of the remainder of my speech.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am glad that she mentioned the 28-day move-on period, which the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness also recommended scrapping. Does she share my hope that the Minister will accept that recommendation for inclusion in the strategy, which is due by the end of the month?

[Kate Green]

I do, and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I am grateful to charities and individuals who have shared stories to illustrate what it means for those who become refugees without either the resources or the home they need to rebuild their lives. The Boaz Trust, with which I have had the privilege of working in Manchester, told me about what happened to Mohsen, a 28-year-old man from Iran who arrived in the UK in 2015 and was found asylum accommodation in Manchester. He says:

“I left NASS in January 2018. They let me stay on for two more weeks because they knew I didn’t have anywhere to go. Then I stayed outside for 2 nights. It was very cold. After that I stayed in a shelter. After 3 weeks the NASS support stopped. Then after maybe three weeks my money came in from the Job Centre…When I left my NASS accommodation, I went to the council and registered with housing. I knew to do this because I have been here a long time. They said I am not priority, and I cannot have any hostel place. I applied for housing and I waited two months…At first the Council say there will be something in 4 weeks, then 8 weeks. In that time, I stayed at Boaz night shelter. Now I am in hostel and I am waiting for a house. I am bidding every week. It was hard staying in the night shelter, staying in different areas every night. During the day I have nowhere to go”.

Sadly, that is far from an untypical story.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.

I commend the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for securing the debate. I also pay tribute to my intern, Gillian Hughes, who is working with me for a few weeks and helped to prepare for this debate.

Given the complexity of Home Office procedures and the conscious decision of this Government to create a hostile environment, it is not surprising that so many asylum-seeking constituents come to me for support with their cases. However, it is even less palatable to know the new range of problems that refugees often face after going through the harrowing process of achieving leave to remain, not least the loss of their financial support and accommodation within only 28 days of a successful decision from the Home Office.

I am in the process of moving house and I can testify that it is a stressful event, even when done voluntarily and with the chance to prepare financially, so imagine trying to do it within 28 days, after having been restricted to not working, while surviving on an income of £37.70 per week and despite language barriers, unfamiliarity with the area and often no support network. In such circumstances, homelessness is a real threat.

It stands to reason that support from the National Asylum Support Service ends when someone is no longer in the process of claiming asylum. However, that should be a managed transition over a reasonable period of time. To end support abruptly makes it extremely difficult for new refugees to move forward, and places a burden on other Departments, local authorities and charities that are already at breaking point.

Last month, I held a special asylum and refugee surgery in Cranhill in my constituency in conjunction with a fantastic Glasgow charity called Refuweegee. It provides practical support in the form of donated clothing, food, toys and other necessities, and it collects welcome letters written by people from all over the city to our newest Glaswegians. One such letter that struck me recently was from a wee girl called Kiera. Kiera had written a beautiful note: “Please don’t worry, you are safe now.” How do we explain to Kiera that of 54 refugees interviewed by the Refugee Council in September last year, not one had found secure accommodation by the time their asylum accommodation was withdrawn, and half of them had been forced to sleep rough or in a night shelter?

Local authorities normally consider homelessness to be imminent if someone is within 56 days of it becoming a reality. Refugees, however, are expected to be able to move on within only half that time. It is not a practical timeframe to impose on some of the most vulnerable within our communities, especially if the Government are serious about their pledge to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and to eliminate it by 2027.

A secure home, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber agrees, is the cornerstone of building a new life and establishing roots. Housing insecurity is a major barrier to education, employment and integration. For example, at the weekend I met a Baillieston constituent, Agatha Mazengera. Recently Agatha was granted refugee status. She has already passed her 28-day mark, but she has not yet been able to secure a permanent home.

Agatha and her daughter have been moved, temporarily, to a bedsit in the opposite end of the city to where their asylum accommodation was. Agatha was very active in her former neighbourhood, as part of the parent council and parent teacher association at her daughter’s school, and as a member of the local church. She tried to keep some sense of familiarity for her daughter by continuing to travel across the city for school each day, but sadly, after a while, that became unworkable. Agatha’s daughter Mychaella therefore had to leave behind her friends at a crucial time in her education, and had to start again at a new school. The ongoing uncertainty about their living conditions means that Mychaella may have to move school yet again. A managed transition, with some professional support would have enabled that family to continue to contribute to the community of which they had become such valuable members.

A leave to remain decision might enable someone to stay in the country, but as the system stands, a clock starts to tick, giving a mere 28 days for people to find work and leave what has been in essence their home. That is a tall order when they have been living hand to mouth, have no savings and often do not even have a bank account, and are learning a new language. I have no doubt that the majority of new refugees are as keen to move to a stable home and into work as the Home Office is for them to do so. We must therefore move away from the culture of hostile practice and provide a bit of support to do that.

We must take some simple, common-sense steps to reduce unnecessary incidences of homelessness or transient housing caused by that unrealistic timescale. Allowing 56 days to move on and providing access to mainstream homelessness prevention services could dramatically increase people’s chances.

[Neil Coyle]

Even when refugees play by the rules and do the right thing, Home Office error often leads to complications that end up with people being made homeless. That happened to Mr Musari and his family in my constituency. It took two years to overturn a mistake by the Home Office. Would it not be simpler to reverse the retraction of legal aid under the coalition Government, so that civil legal aid was available to refugees and others subject to Home Office decisions or affected by Home Office policy?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention chimed with some of what I see in my constituency, such as issues with legal aid, in particular in devolved areas. It can only be even more difficult for the Home Office if it is not following its own procedures. That is a very valid point to make.

Allowing 56 days to move on and providing access to mainstream homelessness prevention services could dramatically increase the chances of people finding a suitable longer-term property. Being awarded refugee status should, at the very least, mean a fair chance of having a place of refuge. As Refuweegee in Glasgow states, “We’re all fae somewhere”, but right now our asylum accommodation system is failing people and leaving them with nowhere in the world to call home. I think everyone in this place would agree that we must do better.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

I acknowledge that such concern has been widely expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. However, the FCA has issued total fines of more than £229 million. In its view, its regulatory toolkit is currently sufficient to enable it to fulfil its consumer protection objective. The FCA will consider the precise rules that apply to claims management companies and how they form an effective regulatory regime overall. In doing so, the FCA will need to take into account its statutory objective of securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. It will also consult openly and publicly on the proposed rules.

The final regime is not set without consultation or reference to the legitimate concerns raised during the passage of the Bill. I note the hon. Gentleman’s observations, but they can be accommodated by the way in which the FCA will handle the matter. Given that, the Government do not believe the new clause is necessary. According to the explanatory statement, the new clause would introduce a duty of care on claims management companies. I will provide some more detail on that duty of care because I have thought a lot about it and have new points that I want to raise following Second Reading. The Government recognise that there are different views on the merits of introducing a duty of care for financial services providers and what it would mean in practice.

Macmillan Cancer Support has run an excellent campaign drawing attention to that important issue. Last week I met Lynda Thomas and her team from Macmillan in the Treasury to discuss their work and their concerns around the proposed duty of care. They told me of their work with Nationwide and Lloyds. They have been working in partnership with the sector on the role of firms in supporting customers.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the Department for Work and Pensions is again in court facing a legal challenge for changes to welfare and support for disabled people, including people with terminal illnesses such as cancer. Does the Minister not accept that Macmillan’s recommendations might go some way to rebuilding disabled people’s trust and faith in the Government, including those with terminal illnesses?

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the case, but it is not for me as a Treasury Minister to comment on it. We need to be clear about the impact of the duty of care and examine it carefully. It is right that we challenge practices that are not up to standard. The question is how we most effectively achieve that without wider collateral damage.

On Macmillan’s partnership work in the financial services sector in supporting customers affected by cancer, I pay tribute to the work done and I am grateful for the insights that it brings, but there is huge uncertainty around the potential impact a duty of care could have on both firms and consumers. As with all significant policy changes, it is important to understand all potential pros and cons. I hope Members agree that there would need to be a thorough assessment of the potential impact of a duty of care before any decision is made on a change of policy. For example, a duty of care might enable consumers to bring financial services firms to court. There might be significant cost, complexity and time involved with that, leave alone codifying exactly what the duty of care would mean.

In turn, a duty of care might lead to a negative impact on product provision and approach to innovation, as firms might not want to risk legal challenge based on an untested new concept. Increasing operational costs for firms as a result of a duty of care will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers, including those in the most vulnerable category. Given those considerations, I hope Members agree that it would not be appropriate for the Government to amend the Bill before a full assessment of the potential impact has been conducted.

The Government believe that the FCA, as the UK’s independent conduct regulator for financial services, is best placed to evaluate the merits of a duty of a care. Recognising the pitch and depth of the legitimate concerns raised, last week I met Andrew Bailey and discussed the duty of care with him, and the FCA will discuss it further. Concern has been expressed that, in the determination to issue a discussion paper post-Brexit, there was too much of a delay. I pressed Andrew Bailey on the need to bring that forward. He understands and acknowledges the desire of Parliament for progress on evaluation, so the FCA now proposes to issue a discussion paper later this year. It will invite contributions from all interested parties on the case for and against a duty of care, what form such a provision might take and consequential issues arising from adopting it. That will be an open process, designed to gather views. I am grateful to the FCA for its commitment to accelerate its proposed timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I would not characterise the Government’s position as, “Let it happen mañana and take our hands off the tiller.” I met Andrew Bailey, and this was not his starting point. It is for Ministers to talk to the FCA, take the views of Parliament as clearly expressed by Members on both sides of the House, and use that pressure to force the FCA to address the issue in a comprehensive way that deals with the real experience of our constituents.

The Government have set out that process, and I have set out the rules and facilities that exist for the FCA. I am convinced there is a process in place that will enhance the necessary protection.

[Neil Coyle]

There are some interesting parallels. Where the Government have a clear objective and aim, as they did in welfare reform, consultations are rushed through by Departments. That delivers inadequate legislation, which is why the Government ended up in court, as has been mentioned. In this case, the Government are passing the buck to the FCA, even though Macmillan has identified a problem, whereas on terror insurance legislation, where the ball is back in the Government’s court and could have been covered by the Bill, they have left a gaping hole, which leaves businesses such as those affected in my constituency in June last year facing potential damages because of the inadequacy of legislation. Why have the Government not opened consultation on that?

[The Chair]

Order. It is not permitted to talk about a non-selected amendment in the context of this discussion.

[Neil Coyle]

With respect, Mr Rosindell, I was talking about Government consultations that have a clear aim.

[The Chair]

We will move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue and for mentioning ABTA, which is based in my constituency. ABTA has done a huge amount of work on the need to introduce exactly what he advocates, to highlight incidents of people fraudulently trying to make claims, supported by cold calling, while posting on Facebook and elsewhere about how much they have enjoyed their holidays and how boozed up they have been. There is clearly a need to address the issue.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. ABTA is increasingly concerned about the consequences for consumers more generally and for its business in particular. Hoteliers and airlines will suffer unless the growing scandal, at the heart of which is shameless cold calling, is ended.

We already ban cold calling for mortgages, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing an immediate ban on cold calling for pensions, but we should also be able to ban cold calling for CMCs, and include a ban on the commercial use of data obtained by cold calling. An unmistakeable message needs to be sent: “If you cold call illegally we will probably catch you and, in any case, you will not be able to sell or use any data collected illegally”.

Laws can, of course, be broken, which is why the new clause gives the FCA the power to set appropriate penalties for a breach of either of the bans. Since the banning of cold calling for mortgages, technology has made enormous progress, and we hope that the Government will be prepared to go yet further in the next stages. The ban on cold calling for mortgages has made truly massive-scale cold calling illegal, but the scale of cold calling continues to grow. Cold calling can and does have damaging and dangerous consequences, especially for the vulnerable, for the elderly, for workers like those in Port Talbot at a time of crisis in their lives, and for the business community. It is time to call a halt to all of that, which is what new clause 9 would do.

New clause 6 inserts a provision into the European Union’s privacy and electronic communications directive, which prohibits unsolicited telephone calls for the purposes of direct marketing, in relation to claims management services, except when the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls. The provision will treat the telephone numbers of everyone cold called about claims management as if they were listed on the telephone preference service register. In 2017, the ICO received 11,805 reports of unsolicited direct marketing calls about claims management from people already on the TPS register, in addition to reports of 17,112 calls and texts for which absence from the register was not deemed to represent consent. The Government amendment will simply add more cases to the yearly total—28,917 in 2017—and will do little to stop the scourge of cold calling. We will not oppose the provision but we invite the Government to comment on our points.

On new clause 8, which has not been selected, the Chairman is absolutely right that it would be an abuse—

Business of the House

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

We have already had several debates in the House on FOBTs, which I know from my casework are an important issue in my constituency. I urge the hon. Gentleman to apply for all sorts of debates so that we can keep exploring the issue further. An announcement is coming in due course; perhaps his work will hasten its arrival.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In the past few years, my constituents have seen a rise in moped-related crime and knife crime. The police do their best to investigate these problems, but prosecution rates have flatlined. Will the Government provide time to debate this inability to deliver justice to victims and their families, and when will they improve their shabby track record?

[Paul Maynard]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the volume of work that is going on right now between all those involved—the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office—to try to understand the underlying causes that have led to the increases that we have seen and the changes in modus operandi at the moment. He is quite right to keep pressing the Government, and I urge him to do so through the usual channels and by calling for debates.

Terror Attacks: Government Financial Support

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government financial support for victims of terror attacks.

I believe this is the first time I have spoken with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. It is nice to see you. We do not have long this afternoon, so I want to focus on recent attacks within the UK and especially in my constituency, the immediate financial support available from the Government and the Government-backed Pool Reinsurance Company system.

Six months ago, on 3 June, my community was attacked by murderous cowards. Three men killed eight innocent people and injured many more before being shot by the police. The response of all our emergency services was absolutely phenomenal. It was a genuine honour to attend the tri-forces commendation service earlier this week, which acknowledged the valour and bravery of many of the police officers from the three forces and from members of the public. The wider public response was equally overwhelming. It included offers of somewhere safe to hide, somewhere to charge a mobile phone to keep in touch with loved ones, and free rides to safety from local cabbies.

There was also a huge effort to reclaim the area as quickly as possible and make it once again the most vibrant and dynamic food and drink venue in London. The whole team at Southwark cathedral and other local organisations deserve praise for their efforts to bring the community back together as quickly as possible after the attack. The Prime Minister talked about the attack on the night. She chaired Cobra the next day, but it took 26 days before the attack was officially certified as a terror incident. That had important ramifications for local businesses. The certification process must be updated. Given modern communications, that kind of delay is simply unacceptable.

In contrast, the police cordon was necessary for their investigation, but it meant that local businesses lost access to their premises for 10 days. The latest estimate is that their losses reach almost £2 million. That is due to direct loss of stock and produce, lost orders and at least one firm that lost a contract to supply restaurants and hotels across London. The cordon and the attack itself meant the loss of bookings and reservations at local restaurants and at the London Bridge Experience, for example.

The Borough Market Trust has done a huge amount. It has been a vast, incredible effort. It is running incredible events and has raised £50,000 from other member businesses to support those affected. A similar sum has been raised from public donations and £16,000 has been raised from #LoveBorough merchandise. The trust directly supports new and small start-up businesses and has been pivotal in keeping some of those microbusinesses afloat after the attack, with at least one person’s personal mortgage being covered through trust funding due to a lack of compensation available from central Government. The trust also suspended rents and worked with other local employers to drive up trade.

It will not be often that you hear Labour MPs praising News UK, Mr Davies, but its head office is at London Bridge, and some of its staff were affected on the evening of the attack and were locked in the building overnight. Since the attack, it has provided £25,000 through lunch vouchers for its staff to directly support Borough market. That has been incredibly well received by market traders, who are directly affected. My local Labour council has provided rates relief of £104,000, and the Mayor of London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan, has provided close to £200,000 in help.

The response from the public, businesses, councils and City Hall is very welcome, but is in stark contrast to our national Government. In the six months since the attack, I have met Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Treasury Ministers, local traders and other representatives—I am grateful to the Minister for his time in those meetings—and the Prime Minister visited the area with me and the Australian Prime Minister, but sadly to date the Government have still not provided a penny of support to those directly affected.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Businesses are not currently covered for the consequent losses that my hon. Friend is talking about. There have been calls for that insurance gap to be closed. Given that the situation could be so substantially changed by such a small change to the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, does he think that the Government should act? Are insurance companies doing enough to help the situation?

[Neil Coyle]

I will come on to talk about that point directly. The short answer is that yes, the Government should act and no, some insurers have not done all they could and should do to rectify the issue.

There has been an absence of immediate financial support and compensation for those affected. Were it not for business-to-business support and public donations, some of the businesses would simply have gone under and people would have lost their jobs. The lack of support has dismayed and distressed local employers. After terror attacks on British tourists abroad, compensation systems were updated in 2012. If we can update systems to ensure that innocent British civilians attacked abroad are better protected, we must be able to better protect British businesses and employers from terror attacks here. Terrorists should not be able to put British jobs at risk or force companies under owing to inaction on compensation. I hope the Minister will confirm today how the Government will compensate businesses still affected by June’s attack and those involved in any future incident.

Future incidents are relevant. On the many screens in this building, we are told every day that the threat level remains severe. We are told that another attack remains very likely, yet no effort has been made to ensure that businesses are protected in the event of a future attack. The Government have yet to act to prevent delays to the certification process. In relation to the point my hon. Friend raised, some insurers used the 26-day delay in certification to avoid making payments initially. That was unacceptable. Some refused to make payments initially due to the way legislation and associated insurance clauses are drafted. Most insurers have now paid out, following interventions from me and the Borough Market Trust acting as a broker. AXA and RSA and others have made payments to some of those affected. The only insurer I am aware of that has failed to pay out is Aviva. It has let my community down, and that has left a nasty, negative stain on its corporate conscience. I hope it will re-examine that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK’s current insurance framework dates back to the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, which established the Pool Re system. That system was built following Provisional IRA attacks on infrastructure that were designed to hit the UK economically. The Act was deliberately drafted to cover physical damage to property and buildings following such incidents as the Manchester Arndale and Canary Wharf attacks. Today’s risks are very different. The kind of terrorism we have seen more recently is designed to target how we live and who we are, and specifically targets innocent civilians and uses vehicles and knives. We know this—sadly, we have seen it—and the Met, the Home Office and wider Government know this, yet for two years Ministers have apparently ignored requests to update the system. Government action is required. Where Pool Re can act on its own, it has. It has extended terror insurance to cover cyber-attacks from next year. It can do that within the powers it has, but to change the definition of physical damage requires legislation and Government action.

Physical damage is not the only thing that needs to be covered. Knife attacks must be incorporated. When introducing legislation, I hope that the Government will look at defining what represents terror and what represents business interruption more tightly to distinguish between payments. The Government could also oblige large employers or those with higher turnover to have better or more extensive coverage, and look at why many small and medium-sized enterprises do not have terror insurance coverage, even in high-risk areas. However, none of those issues can be addressed if legislation is not introduced. I should add that introducing legislation and making those changes will not result in new costs to taxpayers, who would be covered by the pooled system.

For my part, I commit to helping to close this loophole in any way I can. Sadly, I have seen the impact on local businesses of the current inadequate system. I am really grateful to the Association of British Insurers, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association and all others who have worked with me on this issue since June. There is widespread acknowledgment of the need to close the loophole. However, just as public and other financial support for the area should be matched by Government compensation, recognition of the outdated insurance model should now be matched with the political will for modernisation from the Government.

As things stand, if another attack occurred today, six months after London Bridge and Borough market were so brutally attacked, employers would face exactly the same problems. In failing to act, we have a Government that risks undermining their rhetoric about not letting terrorists win. If terrorists truly are not to win, action is needed. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today that the Government will introduce measures to deliver belated compensation to those affected in my constituency. I hope he can also tell us how the Government will administer future compensation, improve the certification process to prevent future delays, and improve the Pool Reinsurance system. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

As I have already indicated, we have given this matter careful consideration and, for the reasons I have set out, decided that it is not appropriate to introduce topical questions at Northern Ireland Question Time—and that would also be true for Wales and Scotland.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In response to the rather disappointing answers from the Deputy Leader of the House, may I ask whether she will consider introducing topical oral questions for Scotland and Wales?

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; I think that this is the first time he has asked a question from the Dispatch Box. I genuinely want to put across quite carefully the level of consideration that we have given to this matter. The Table Office is a very useful filter that enables us to ask questions that are in order. The risk is that Members could end up being ruled out of order while trying to ask their topical questions, which would not be good for their reputations either.

The Economy and Work

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a class act. The shout was, “Do we welcome the jobs?” Of course we do, but let us be clear: too many of the jobs created since 2010 have been poorly paid and insecure. Some 800,000 people are now on zero-hours contracts. Insecurity at work has been made worse by the undermining of employment rights by the Government. There is no need for that.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Trussell Trust, which provides the food bank in Southwark, is providing food bank support to hundreds of people in work? It estimates that 10% of the people it serves in central London are in work.

[John McDonnell]

We welcome new jobs, but insecurity and poor pay mean that the numbers in work who are going along to get support from food banks is growing rather than reducing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I do not agree with that. Evidence shows that as a result of university reforms introduced by the Labour Government—which the hon. Gentleman used to support—and by the coalition Government and now this Conservative Government, not only are a record number of students going to our universities, but a record number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds are going. I find it extraordinary that a Labour party that introduced tuition fees is now promising to scrap them and create a £10 billion hole that will presumably be filled by taxes that are paid by those who did not go to university and have lower incomes. That is the so-called progressive policy of the so-called progressive Labour party.

[Neil Coyle]

The Chancellor says he is proud of the Government’s track record on social care. How many fewer older and disabled people receive social care services from local authorities now than when he took office in 2010?

[Mr Osborne]

We have put more money into social care, and we have allowed the precept to be applied by councils, many of which have taken up that option. As a result, more money will go into social care in the coming years. That is what we have done, but we could not do any of those things such as support social care or universities without a sound economic policy. I listened in complete incredulity to yet another speech from yet another shadow Chancellor promising yet more billions of pounds of spending, borrowing, and extra taxes. It is as if the scorching experience of the financial crash eight years ago, and the crippling deficit with which Labour saddled this country, never happened.

When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the record of the Labour Government he kept saying, “Up until 2008”, as if he had forgotten that the biggest crash in modern history was while the Labour party was in office. It is a bit like saying to Mrs Lincoln, “Apart from the assassination, did you enjoy the play?”

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

No, obviously I am not suggesting that for a minute. That is a nonsense thing to say. Let me walk through what the Government are proposing.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that under the coalition Government the projected savings that were meant to come from changes to housing benefit and employment and support allowance never materialised? Savings of £10 billion were not made by the previous Government. Perhaps Government Members should be challenging their Secretary of State and calling for his resignation.

[Owen Smith]

Of course they should. If they had any guts they would do precisely that. There has been an abject failure on housing benefit. The bill has gone up and up and up. If the Bill is passed—I sincerely hope it does not pass after yesterday evening’s decision—housing benefit spending will go up some more. We know the Government have failed on that and they will continue to fail in the future.

Let us look, for a moment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

The National Audit Office has suggested that as a result of the incompetence of the coalition Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, £140 million was wasted on the early stages of universal credit. Is my hon. Friend aware that that could have helped 108,000 people who are now being punished for that failure and face the withdrawal of tax credits, or 21,500 people over the course of the current Parliament? Should the money not have been better spent?

[Owen Smith]

That is a brilliant point, and extremely well made. There are myriad examples of waste and incompetence in the handling of our DWP budget under this Government, not least the enormous increase in housing benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

We need to be clear about the problems with tax credits. Let me offer the House three facts. The first is that, under the last Labour Government, 1.4 million people remained on out-of-work benefits for almost the entire period. Secondly, the number of workless households doubled, and thirdly, the level of in-work poverty rose by 20%. So there has been a massive increase in expenditure on welfare and on tax credits, but it is not delivering the reduction in poverty that we all desire.

[Neil Coyle]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that tax credits have played a role in tackling in-work poverty?

[Oliver Dowden]

This is precisely the point that I would like to get on to. Despite the increased expenditure on tax credits, we continue to see these dreadful statistics on poverty, and that is because this is a flawed model that is based on taxing people on the minimum wage who can barely afford to pay tax, recycling that revenue through the welfare system and using it to top up low pay. That is not a sensible way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is right that those exemptions are made.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister be absolutely clear that the half a million disabled people receiving ESA in the work-related activity group will not be protected under the measures that he has just outlined?

[Damian Hinds]

People who are in the work-related activity group are, by definition, people who are to be helped to move closer to the labour market. What I have said in the list of exemptions that I have read out is that the amounts that are specific to the additional costs of disability are protected, which is something that we discussed in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his question belies the facts. Some £640 million is being withdrawn from people in the ESA WRAG, while £100 million is meant, in some undisclosed manner, to provide support. There is no information from the Government on how that will support disabled people back into work.

As I was saying, there is no analysis of the impact that this will have on the disabled people who will be pushed into poverty. Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in persistent poverty, and 80% of disability-related poverty is caused by their extra costs. Last year, there was a 2% increase in the number of disabled people who were pushed into poverty. That is equivalent to 300,000 people. The Minister’s recent reply to me did not address this particular point, so I would be very grateful if that could be explained. Half a million disabled people will be affected and lose £30 a week—nearly a third of their weekly income. What is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of disabled people who will be living in poverty?

[Neil Coyle]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her rightful place on the Labour Front Bench. Is she aware that in the other place Lord Low is going to carry out an independent review of poverty, in the absence of a Government study? Will she encourage the Government to interact with that independent review, in particular on poverty and the impact on higher health and local authority costs as a result of the reduction in ESA?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is able to undertake that analysis. Other bodies and organisations are doing it, so why are the Government not able to do it? Surely this is what we should expect from the Government in their implementation of policy. There are real concerns from disabled charities, disabled groups and Lord Holmes, the chair of the EHRC’s disability committee, about the extent to which the assessment of the impact on disabled people is understood.

On incentivising work, on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions stated:

“the current system discourages claimants from making the transition into work.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1259.]

What about people with progressive conditions, such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, who have no prospect of recovery but have undergone a work capability assessment? They have been found not fit for work and placed in the WRAG group. Are the Government seriously saying that the measure will incentivise this group of disabled people into work? They have already been found not able to work through the Government’s own assessment process. Their progressive conditions are not going to change. This is a real concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for making his point so forcefully.

I will move on to the proposed amendments to clause 13. The Bill Committee heard evidence of the damage that a long period or a life on welfare can do to people. Our witnesses talked about people who had been out of work for a long time having their confidence destroyed, and about how they begin to feel that they are not capable of changing their lives. We were also told that 61% of people in the work-related activity group want to work, yet only 1% come off that benefit each month. I am sure that many of us know of people who find it difficult to get into work for all sorts of reasons, such as mental health problems, and need extra help to do so. The current system is not working well enough. Not only does clause 13 remove financial disincentives, but, critically, and hand in hand with that, the Government have committed new funding to help that group of people into work, which is a response to what they really want.

[Neil Coyle]

What message does the hon. Lady think she is sending to the 8,000 people with progressive and incurable conditions in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group when she says they should be working rather than receiving support?

[Helen Whately]

I had a conversation recently with the company that does the work assessments. We talked about the importance of people with progressive conditions not being put in groups that would lead to them being made to work if it is not possible for them to do so. We should not assume, however, that just because someone has a progressive condition they do not necessarily want to work and be helped to do so.

Although many people knock jobcentres and are critical of them, the Committee also heard about the effective work they do across the country in supporting people, particularly those faced with barriers, to get into work. I have heard of some great examples in my own constituency in Kent.

In summary, many important and valid points have been raised in Committee and in this Chamber. The amendments, however, propose to pull apart a package of considered changes to welfare, including tax changes such as increases to the personal allowance and access to free childcare, as announced in the summer Budget. That package of measures is about making work pay and helping people into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I want to speak about new clause 3, to which my name is attached. It was a privilege to be a member of the Bill Committee, which studied this issue in some detail. I thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—who is no longer present—and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for speaking positively about the new clause. I hope that that is an indication of consensus that it is a necessary amendment to the coalition Government’s changes in relation to personal independence payments. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and his local citizens advice bureau. They helped with the drafting of the new clause, and also provided genuine case studies of terminally ill people who are missing out on the swifter support that the new clause would deliver.

New clause 3 is designed to address a bureaucratic anomaly that has arisen since the Government began ending disability living allowance and introducing personal independence payments. New claimants of PIP who become terminally ill can access additional support swiftly, and under the DLA system, people could, on receipt of a terminal prognosis, access help swiftly. However, since PIP has begun to replace DLA under the coalition’s regulations, an issue has arisen that affects people who are already on DLA, become terminally ill, and are required to move on to PIP before they can access the additional help that the whole House seems to agree should be provided. The aim of the new clause is to enable people receiving DLA who are transferred to PIP owing to terminal illness to receive their first new payment immediately after being transferred. Currently, claimants must wait four weeks for their final DLA payment to be made, and then another four weeks to receive their first personal independence payment.

The Government have suggested that they are protecting disabled people from the worst cuts. The new clause is concerned solely with terminally ill and disabled people: people with an existing impairment or health condition, and a terminal prognosis. That is a very small group. To meet the Department’s definition of “terminally ill”, the claimant would need to provide independent medical evidence of a prognosis of six months or less to live. While it is great to have the support of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for the new clause, it is slightly more disturbing that Members should suggest that only those with six months or less to live should benefit from our welfare system.

On 9 September, I asked the Department to specify the number of people on DLA who could benefit from the new clause. The response was that the information on the number of disabled people affected was “not collated” by the Department, and

“could only be provided at disproportionate cost.”

That was an incredibly disappointing response, given the nature of the people whom we are discussing.

In May this year, the DWP did publish a statistical report on registrations, clearances and awards of PIP, which indicates how many people might qualify under the new clause. As at 31 March 2015, the number of reassessments under

“special rules for the terminally ill”

was just 1,600 in two years. So that the Government can cost the new clause, let me explain that we are talking about roughly 800 people a year who are disadvantaged by current processes and who would benefit slightly from a more empathetic system: that is, disabled people who are on DLA and are moving to PIP owing to terminal illness.

Let me give the House a couple of genuine case studies. Carol is 59, lives in Sheffield, and was receiving the DLA care component at the lowest rate of £21.80 per week. On 27 May this year, following a diagnosis of terminal, metastatic breast cancer, she notified the DWP that she wanted her claim to be reconsidered under the special rules. The Department awarded her the highest rate of daily living and mobility components of PIP, worth more than £100 a week extra to reflect her new needs and her terminal prognosis. However, owing to the application of the transitional PIP rules, payment was from 8 July, four weeks after her next DLA payment. Had she been a new claimant for PIP and not already receiving DLA, the benefit would have been paid immediately. Carol lost about £240 as a result of a bureaucratic anomaly.

John was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. He also has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and has had his right leg amputated below the knee. He lives in Sheffield and receives disability living allowance, with a high-rate mobility component and a low-rate care component. Under PIP, he is entitled to an enhanced rate of the care component and a high-rate mobility component. Although he discovered on 10 August that the additional help would be available, his next DLA payment was due on 2 September, and under the anomaly he did not qualify for the extra help until 30 September. We are talking about almost an eight-week delay for someone living in those circumstances.

Given the circumstances of those involved, some people affected by the change will simply not live long enough to receive the extra help to which they are entitled under existing rules. That additional waiting time was not required under DLA rules and has arisen purely as result of the introduction of PIP by the coalition Government. PIP is now being rolled out nationally and this issue will begin to affect more people in more constituencies. If Carol or John were new claimants, they would have got help quicker. When people are terminally ill, time is more pressing and more precious. John and Carol are genuine people who would, if the new clause is accepted, have a little more help for a little more time.

We discussed this issue in Committee at some length, and the Minister for Employment suggested that

“PIP recognises the unique challenges of claimants who are terminally ill.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 435.]

John and Carol, however, demonstrate how PIP has introduced an obstacle to swift support and left some people with less help. It is my understanding that that bureaucratic anomaly was an accident, as we discussed in Committee, rather than deliberate policy design, but the result is that it has delayed support for terminally ill and disabled people. The new clause would change that situation.

In Committee, the Minister also emphasised that PIP handles new cases under a fast-track system, with claims, on average, being cleared within six working days and with 99% of people going on to receive an award at a higher rate. That is welcome, but it serves to highlight the disadvantage for former DLA claimants moving to PIP, as opposed to the system for new claims, statistics for which the Minister cited. The fast-track system reflects the fact that these people have only six months to live and was meant to mirror the DLA system. The new clause would replicate the system in a way that addresses the anomaly arising from regulations and would provide equivalent support for those on DLA transitioning to PIP and new claimants.

In Committee, the Minister undertook to meet me and interested parties to address our concerns, and that meeting will be tomorrow. I am grateful for the Minister’s time but I thought there would be more of a window of opportunity for the Government to explore this issue in detail before Report and Third Reading. I understand that they may be willing to address this issue in the other place and, as I say, I am pleased to have heard positive comments from some Government Members, but a strong indication today that the Government do intend to address the issue would be very helpful. I hope they will accept the new clause or indicate how they will introduce their own mechanism to fix the anomaly caused by the PIP regulations, which leaves the most disadvantaged terminally ill people waiting while their time with family, friends and loved ones runs out.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Having served on the Bill Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to focus my attention on amendments 35 to 48 relating to the benefit cap, and speak first to amendments 35, 36 and 37. In my view, it was absolutely right in the last Parliament to introduce the benefits cap, and it is right that we review its level now, as set out in clause 7. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments, which seek to keep the cap at the current level.

Many of the things I will touch on this afternoon have been covered by my colleagues, but I wish to make a few points. The benefits cap was introduced in the last Parliament to make work pay or, to put it another way, to incentivise people into work, ensuring that those people who can work are always better off doing so, rather than living a life on benefits. This was about creating fairness in the system.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Amanda Milling]

I am going to make some progress.

It is morally right that people who can work are better off in work; why should someone who is able to go to work get more money on benefits than in work? There has been strong support for that argument, both nationally and in my constituency. As I have mentioned in this Chamber before, Cannock Chase is a former mining area, where there is an incredibly strong work ethic. That might go some way to explaining why people would spontaneously say to me on the doorstep that they really supported the cap. That is notwithstanding the general public’s support. A YouGov survey conducted in the previous Parliament demonstrated the strength of public feeling, with around three quarters of respondents supporting the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that self-employment has increased by 42%? How many of those newly self-employed people does he think are in sustainable small businesses? People come to my constituency surgeries who have become self-employed and are working as window cleaners. That is fine—of course everyone needs to get their windows cleaned—but there is a limit to how many window cleaners we need in society. If people are coming out of highly skilled jobs and going into very low-skilled ones—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can protest as much as they like, but when the Treasury Committee took evidence from representatives of the Bank of England, they told us that a lot of the increase in self-employment was not real employment and that it was a sign that people could not get the kind of employed jobs that they wanted. Professor Kristin Forbes said precisely that to the Committee. Conservative Members do not need to pretend that this is some kind of prejudice on my part. It certainly is not.

[Neil Coyle]

Much has been said about the current employment levels. Indeed, we heard earlier that there had been a miracle, no less. Is my hon. Friend aware that the percentage of working age disabled people in work has fallen over the past five years, in direct correlation to the reduction in the number of disability employment advisers and in the number of disabled people being supported by the Access to Work scheme?

[Helen Goodman]

I was not aware of that fact, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out.

On the employment numbers, I also want to point out that there are a lot of people on short-hours contracts. I am not talking about zero-hours contracts, which have now reached 750,000, as Conservative Members must know; I am talking about eight-hour and 12-hour contracts. They provide insecure employment and insufficient money for people to live on, and they make it very difficult to get other jobs. They are, however, recorded as employment. There is all the difference in the world between working 35 hours a week and working eight hours a week, and Conservative Members need to think about that before they start talking about miraculous employment figures.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Seventh sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds]

I fell into the temptation of the wider debate, but I will now get away from it. However, the existence of the structural deficit and the continuing problems that we find ourselves in post 2007-08 are why we need to get our public finances back into order.

Nobody would deny the existence of automatic stabilisers, as the hon. Lady mentioned, but we need a welfare system, a benefits system and general public finances that are sustainable and fair to all people—those who pay in and those who are beneficiaries. Despite reforms in the previous Parliament reducing the number of families eligible for tax credits to six out of 10, the current level of spending on tax credits is unsustainable.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I think I ought to make some progress. [Interruption.] Oh, go on then.

[Neil Coyle]

I am glad that my disappointed face worked on this occasion.

Although the suggestion that the change is about balancing the books is fine on one level, the Minister has had specific requests for information about families who will not feel that they are personally responsible for the national economic position. We heard from the hon. Member for Livingston about incidents of rape, and we have heard a discussion about the equality impact assessment. I would like the Minister to address the concerns of people of faith who do not believe in contraception. Will they be subject to the cap?

We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a big fan of China, but even in China, with its single child policy, there is flexibility within the system to allow people from minority ethnic communities to have more than one child, to allow people from farming and rural communities to have more than one child—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It is not at all uncommon for a Government to say that particular aspects of the implementation of a policy are delicate and sensitive and require careful thought with external stakeholders who are experts in the field. That is what will happen in this case. I do not feel the need to defend that. It is the right thing to do because there are people who have expertise, and it is absolutely right that they should have the opportunity to be consulted.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The Government will continue to support larger families through child benefit, which is paid for all qualifying children in a household. There are 15 hours of childcare available to the 40% least advantaged families. Families will continue to receive 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and the Government have announced that from September 2017 that will be extended to 30 hours for parents who are in work. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I do not want to pre-empt the more interesting discussion we may have later, but on the grounds that the intervention is relevant, as always, I give way.

[Neil Coyle]

As universal credit is rolled out, will the Minister provide families with a time machine so that they can go back and not have children?

[Damian Hinds]

I fear that that is another invitation to err from the path of the rightful debate.

On new clause 5, the intention seems to be to amend section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to housing benefit that would restrict the number of children who can be included in the housing benefit assessment. Housing benefit and the housing element in universal credit take into account the number of children for whom the claimant is responsible. There is no maximum number attached to that, and the Bill does not introduce one.

The only related changes to housing benefit, which will follow in regulations, are to ensure that a claimant’s housing benefit award is no higher than it would have been if the tax credit changes were not introduced. Obviously, without those changes, the tax credit change would have the unintended effect of awarding claimants with more than two children a higher amount of housing benefit, which would reduce the savings from the tax credit change.

Let me be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury raised some very reasonable questions, which we need to address directly. As she knows, housing benefit is made up of a number of elements. That includes taking into account the number of children in calculating the family’s income. The family premium she mentioned is part of that calculation. The changes will affect the calculation of family income, but not the number of rooms allocated, which is a separate issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

In future, a different system will be in operation. It limits the cash support through the tax credit system to two children. It will continue to include child benefit, and it will also include enhanced child care. For example, we will be moving to 30 hours of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds and there will be further improvements in universal credit.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Lady’s point was about her child. I do not think she meant it as a direct question. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain that there will be a limit to the amount of financial support coming through the tax credit system according to the number of children, but there will be other elements still in place, and enhanced elements in relation to childcare. There will also be a further increase in the income tax personal allowance and a major structural reform in the labour market so that the tax credit system does not top up low wages. People will be paid properly for the job that they do via the national living wage, and we estimate that 65% of people who benefit from the national living wage will be women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak as the shadow Minister for Disabled People, so if you will allow me, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor and friend, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She did a fantastic job, not just in this Bill Committee but in the past in this role and her mantle is going to be hard to take up.

I want to add my voice to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has said. The tax credit provisions in the Bill are pernicious, and these elements are particularly callous and unjust. We are seeking to try to exempt families with disabled children from their impact.

Those who have spoken to parents and carers with disabled children will know that there are additional costs associated with raising disabled children. Contact A Family’s “Counting the Costs” report found that families with disabled children are more likely to be living in poverty than other families and that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child. Families with disabled children face considerable additional expenditure on heating, housing, clothing, equipment and other items compared with other families. My youngest daughter was diagnosed with asthma when she was very little. One of the triggers for her was the cold and we had to have our heating on all day and all night when she was little to try and avoid what often happened, which was that she stopped breathing. I have that personal experience and, fortunately, we were able to cope with the financial costs of additional heating, but that is not the case for many families.

Research over many years demonstrates a strong relationship between low income, social exclusion and disability among families who have a disabled child. As the “Every Disabled Child Matters” campaign has said, childhood disability is frequently a trigger event for poverty, as a result of additional costs, family break-up and unemployment following the birth or diagnosis of a disabled child. As I said, disabled children are also at a high risk of poverty as a result of low household incomes. Many parents of disabled children are unable to work because of care responsibilities and the lack of, or the cost of, appropriate childcare. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the issue of providing appropriate childcare for disabled people because, within the proposed provisions, the Government have not been particularly explicit about how that relates to disabled children.

[Neil Coyle]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. The Minister has already mentioned a commitment to providing 30 hours of childcare, but at no point have the Government provided any information on how it will be assessed and whether parents can genuinely access that level of childcare, in particular the parents of disabled children. Would my hon. Friend welcome the Government clarifying whether childcare is genuinely accessible, particularly for parents of disabled children?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it in his response.

Barriers to work are created by the stress of caring, often with no support. I am thinking again in the context of the £3.6 billion of cuts in social care, which also affect disabled people. When people do not have that support enabling them to work, it can build difficulties into family relationship. It is not clear in the impact assessment whether an assessment has been done on the likely increase in poverty of families with disabled children.

For example, what is the increase in NHS admissions predicted to be? I have mentioned my daughter who has asthma. The implication is that there will be other families in similar circumstances. Is there any prediction of an increase in family breakdown? We cannot be in a situation where, potentially, the Government are arguing that the measure will balance the books when it is really about cost-shunting from one Department to another. What assessment has been done on that?

We do not believe that disabled people, their families and their carers should be subject to further cuts and therefore seek to exempt households with one or more disabled children from the provisions on both child tax credit and universal credit. The Government and the social security system rightly recognise the additional costs of raising disabled children but the provisions in clauses 11 and 12 seem to be at odds with that. I oppose them absolutely and in their entirety. At the very least, the effect of the provisions should be mitigated for households with a disabled child and I urge all members of the Committee to do the right thing and support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I welcome the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth to her place in the Committee and, more broadly, to the Opposition Front Bench. She has a hard act to follow in the shape of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, but I know that she will execute her work absolutely admirably in this Committee and beyond. She and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury have spoken powerfully about the challenges faced by the parents of disabled children. I echo them in acknowledging the invaluable work that such parents and families do in difficult circumstances.

The Government are protecting benefits related to the additional costs of disability and care by exempting them from the freeze and from the cap that we discussed on another day. Those benefits include personal independence payments, disability living allowance and the support group component of employment and support allowance. Additionally, we will continue to increase those benefits by inflation. The Government are committed to supporting disabled children. We have reformed the special needs system to support children continuously from birth to the age of 25 and increased our spend on the main disability benefits by more than £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament. Overall, of course, we continue to spend about £50 billion on disability benefits and services each year.

My understanding is that amendments 83 and 84 would have the effect of removing households with one or more children with a disability from the two-child support limit policy in child tax credit and universal credit respectively. Thus, a family with five children, one of whom is disabled, would continue to receive child tax credit or universal credit in respect of all five children, as well as the appropriate disabled child element in child tax credit and the additional amount in universal credit. The Government think it right that, just as families who support themselves solely through work must weigh up financial considerations when deciding to have more children, families in receipt of benefits should face the same sorts of financial consideration. That should apply to all families.

In recognition of the costs of supporting disabled children, we will create a separate disability element of child tax credit that will be payable for all disabled children, regardless of whether they are the third or subsequent children or otherwise. We will continue to pay the relevant additional amount for disabled children in universal credit, regardless of whether those children are the third or subsequent children or otherwise.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark rightly raised the subject of childcare. He will know that, in the tax-free childcare system that we are introducing, there is, quite rightly, a special addition to recognise the additional costs of childcare that pertain for children with a disability. In the overall offer of 15 hours and 30 hours of childcare there is, as he will know, rightly a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure proper provision for children with disabilities in the nurseries that their families trust.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister mentioned universal credit. It sounds like that might be welcome. Will he update us on the roll-out of universal credit and identify where the overlap with the measure will not exist? There is a statutory responsibility on local authorities, but how will the Government ensure that families with disabled children who cannot access appropriate, accessible childcare are not penalised?

[Damian Hinds]

I do not dispute for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him entirely that we—the Government and Members of Parliament—must be vigilant in ensuring that families, including those with disabled children, have access to good childcare. It is a duty on local authorities but vigilance is always required to ensure that such measures are delivered. The hon. Gentleman asked about the roll-out of universal credit. I am not quite sure of the specific context in relation to the measures—I will just say that it is on track. It will be in every jobcentre by April 2016, with the bulk of migration complete by 2019.

New clause 16 seeks to specify exemptions to our proposals, including a new role for the Social Security Advisory Committee, and to establish an appeals process. The Government have already given a clear commitment that multiple births, for example twins or triplets, will be treated as a single birth with a child element for each sibling where there were previously fewer than two children in the household. We have also set out that there will be protections—we discussed this earlier—for women who have a third child as the result of rape. We will set out exemptions in regulations after discussions with stakeholders and careful consideration. Using regulations to set out exemptions provides the Government with greater flexibility to adjust exemptions in the future without needing to secure primary legislation. That is more appropriate because we may wish to act relatively quickly in the light of operational experience.

The Social Security Advisory Committee, as its name suggests, is a valuable body for advising the Government on our secondary legislation. It does not, however, have the remit to design legislation. That is the proper job of the Government and we consult with the committee as appropriate. Amendments 83 and 84 relate to the proposed exemption of households where any child or qualifying young person is disabled. I have responded on that issue.

Finally, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to set up an appeals structure. Social security and tax credits already have comprehensive appeals arrangements that will apply to any decisions made under the provisions in the Bill or exceptions set out in regulations. The provision is therefore not required. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. We have recognised that there will be a need for some exemptions, for example in relation to multiple births, but those are much better dealt with in a considered way in collaboration with stakeholders through secondary legislation. I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the amendment.