parliamentary debates - publications.parliament.uk€¦ · † vara, mr shailesh (parliamentary...

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATESHOUSE OF COMMONS

OFFICIAL REPORTGENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

WELFARE REFORM AND WORK BILL

Eighth Sitting

Tuesday 13 October 2015

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 13 TO 15 agreed to.CLAUSE 16, as amended, under consideration when the Committeeadjourned till Thursday 15 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.Written evidence reported to the House.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONSLONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED

£6·00PBC (Bill 051) 2015 - 2016

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published withBound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest shouldbe clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—andmust be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 17 October 2015

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLYFACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF

THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGSIN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2015This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: ALBERT OWEN, †MR GARY STREETER

† Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth)(Lab)

† Atkins, Victoria (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)† Bardell, Hannah (Livingston) (SNP)Churchill, Jo (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)† Heaton-Jones, Peter (North Devon) (Con)† Hinds, Damian (Exchequer Secretary to the

Treasury)† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)† Milling, Amanda (Cannock Chase) (Con)† Opperman, Guy (Hexham) (Con)† Patel, Priti (Minister for Employment)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)† Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)† Thornberry, Emily (Islington South and Finsbury)

(Lab)† Vara, Mr Shailesh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions)† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)† Wilson, Corri (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)

Marek Kubala, Ben Williams, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

309 31013 OCTOBER 2015Public Bill Committee Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 13 October 2015

(Afternoon)

[MR GARY STREETER in the Chair]

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

2 pm

Clause 13

EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE: WORK-RELATED ACTIVITY COMPONENT

Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab):I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 13, page 14,line 21, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State must make provision foradditional personalised and specialist employment support inconnection with subsections (1) to (3).

(5B) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on thefollowing—

(a) the forms of personalised and specialist employmentsupport;

(b) the means by which a diverse market of suppliers forpersonalised and specialist employment support canbe developed in local areas; and

(c) information for local authorities seeking to improvelocal disability employment rates.’

To provide additional specialist employment support for disabledpeople.

I thank all Members for their understanding earlier andapologise for the interruption to our business, whichwas due to some sad family news.

Amendment 139 would require the Secretary of Stateto make provision for additional personalised and specialistemployment support for disabled people. As we haveheard previously in the Committee, the Government’sambition of halving the disability employment gap iswelcome, but it represents a not insignificant challengeand much more detail is needed for Committee membersto be able to scrutinise how itis to be achieved. It isunclear from the Bill how Ministers intend practicallyto narrow the disability employment gap.

Of course, we operate in the context of what hashappened in the past five years in particular, when wehave seen the number of disability employment advisersat Jobcentre Plus drop; the number of disabled peoplesupported by Access to Work, in particular, fall; workcapability assessments being delayed or made inaccurately;and a lower percentage of working-age disabled peopleactually supported into work. We have a Work programmethat has not had the highest success rate in ensuringthat disabled people go on into employment. Manydisabled people can and want to work, but face significantbarriers to entering and staying in work. That is whyspecialist employment support is crucial, and thisamendment is aimed at securing information from Ministersto ensure that that is delivered and is effective.

The Committee heard a great deal from witnessesabout the kind of employment support that would beeffective, the improvements that are needed and the lackof support that disabled people currently feel able toaccess. We have heard from the Minister that theGovernment plan to invest in additional employmentsupport for disabled people, starting at £60 million ayear from 2016-17 and rising to £100 million a year by2021. That is positive and welcome, but it is importantto understand how it will be used and how its efficacywill be measured. As yet we have heard no detail on howthat investment will be directed or implemented, or howmany people it is designed to support.

There are also concerns in the disability sector aboutwhether that money will be used for Disability Confident,because of the lack of transparency about how DisabilityConfident is measured, and whether it is just a means ofattracting employers to events or is genuinely aboutfocusing on job outcomes for disabled people. I hopethat the Minister will have the opportunity today to setout how the Government intend to develop the supportprogramme and what it will look like in practice.

We know that disabled people trying to find, enterand stay in work face a number of barriers. They caninclude a lack of suitable and vacant jobs, poor attitudesfrom potential employers towards hiring disabled peopleand a lack of appropriate support to enter the workplace.However, current back-to-work support for disabledpeople simply is not delivering. The work capabilityassessment does not accurately determine the supportthat disabled people need; it is more of a medicallyfocused assessment process and does not relate to disabledpeople’s real experience of trying to find work and, inparticular, stay in work. Specialist support to assist withfinding and staying in work is essential, and the amendmentis designed to help secure that.

There is also concern that existing employment supportis misfiring and is ineffective. To provide some detail,job outcomes for disabled people on the Work programmeare only 7.7% for those entering employment supportallowance, and just 3.9% for those moving from incapacitybenefit on to employment support allowance. Furthermore,the specialist Work Choice programme is ineffectivelytargeted and offers support only to a very small numberof disabled people, and I should say that the figures Ihave just used are the Department’s own figures. Arecent evaluation of the Work programme by theDepartment found that disabled people were more likelythan other groups to say they had not received support,which is surprising given that there is meant to bededicated support. Those who had received supportwere less likely to say that it was helpful.

Both programmes come to an end in 2017, and theamendment gives the Minister another opportunity tooutline what support will be available in practice fromthen. What plans do the Government have to re-evaluatethose programmes and the type of support they offer?What improvements do they have planned?

There is particular concern among disabled peopleand disability organisations—I refer particularly to thebriefing I have received from the disability organisationScope—about what the quantitative changes to employmentand support allowance could mean in relation toconditionality. I do not think any Member would wantto find a disabled person coming to their surgery having

311 312HOUSE OF COMMONSPublic Bill Committee Welfare Reform and Work Bill

experienced sanctions, unable to access any benefit as aresult of the changes and without sufficient employmentsupport.

Written evidence to the Committee has called foremployment support to be tailored to the needs of theindividual, joined up with wider public services andmore reflective of local labour markets. Specialist providershave the expertise to respond directly to specificbarriers to work that disabled people experience. If theMinister has not already visited, I certainly recommendthat she sees the Royal National Institute of BlindPeople’s support programme in Loughborough. Specialistemployment support could include peer-to-peer sessions,interview and CV preparation, support focused onmanaging specific impairments, and discussing withemployers how to manage different types of support inthe workplace. Such support allows for more intensiveand effective interventions that reflect the specific supportneeds of an individual.

Scope provided me with Azar’s story. Azar is 20 andrecently took part in Scope’s pre-employment programmefor young disabled people. Azar has cerebral palsy andtold Scope that because of his disability, potential employersassumed that “he couldn’t do this and he couldn’t dothat”. He knew that he wanted to work in business, soafter he left college he was looking for a job, as hewanted experience to put on his CV. Having had thesupport of a professional mentor, he feels more confidentand less worried about being judged, which has a significantand positive impact on his employability.

Job retention is another area that requires renewedfocus if we are to halve the disability employment gap,and specialist employment support has a role to play inthat too. Ann, a member of staff of Scope’s employmentservice, provides an example of how such support canhelp people stay in work. Ann supported a client withAsperger’s syndrome who worked in a hotel. When hegot stressed and bombarded with customers, he wentinto his shell and ignored people. He got really upsetwith his own behaviour. The reasonable adjustment wasfor Ann, the specialist disability employment supportworker, to speak to the manager and ask about makingsure that the client was able to have a breather for fiveminutes to handle the stress. The manager was absolutelyfine with that. That is a straightforward, cost-neutral,reasonable adjustment and has significant positive benefits,but requires someone who understands the health conditionand is able to work with the employer.

The Government should consider personal budgetsto support disabled people, so that they have greatercontrol over the type of employment support theyreceive. The In Control programme had a certain measureof success, and it is a shame that it has been wrappedup. There is considerable international evidence thatpersonal budgets can empower disabled people to haveincreased choice and control over their career by removingbureaucracy from the employment support system andcreating greater flexibility in the type of employmentsupport available. They also serve to help smooth thetransition for disabled people moving from unemploymentinto work, they and should link up with Access to Worksupport. If people were able to carry through the Accessto Work package, it would smooth the system significantly.

Finally, the devolution agenda provides a big opportunityto do far more to ensure that disabled people areconnected to growth and employment opportunities in

their local area. There are precedents for funding focusedon increasing employment rates for specific groups ofpeople, such as the Youth Contract and the YouthContract for cities. There is the potential for regions tobe incentivised to put disabled people at the heart oftheir growth strategies. That could be done by creatingspecialist employment support programmes, bringingtogether local employers or looking at wider strategies.I therefore urge the Government to ensure as a minimumthat regulations made under the Bill give due considerationto types of support that will ensure that many moredisabled people are better supported in the workplace.

Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP): I welcome thehon. Gentleman back to his place, and I am glad to seethat he has been able to return.

The SNP fully oppose the proposals within clauses 13and 14. We are glad to see Labour making some headwayand supporting us in our opposition. To reduce the rateof employment and support allowance to that of jobseeker’sallowance is completely immoral and makes absolutelyno sense to us. The Government clearly did not considerwhen formulating the policy the fact that those whohave been placed in the ESA work-related activity grouphave been independently found unfit to work. Otherwisethey would not seek to reduce the support for those whoare ill or have disabilities or more complex needs to thesame level as support for fit-for-work claimants, such asthose receiving JSA.

ESA claimants have always received a higher ratethan those on JSA, because they typically take longer tomove back into work, as they face additional barriers.Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, expressed thesame concern when he said:

“Almost 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within6 months, while almost 60% of people in the WRAG need thissupport for at least two years. It is unrealistic to expect people tosurvive on £73 a week for this length of time.”

Returning to employment is not an option for manypeople with disabilities. Those unable to work shouldreceive an income replacement benefit to ensure a fairincome.

The Minister needs to understand that those who livewith an illness or condition are typically worse off thanthose who do not. A Parkinson’s UK survey in 2007found that just under a third of working-age peoplewith Parkinson’s were in any form of employment. Itfurther reported that many younger people with Parkinson’swho cannot sustain work because of their conditionrelied on incapacity benefit for their income or part oftheir income.

I cite again the case of my constituent with Parkinson’swho came to see me after having been sanctioned. Iwrote to the Department about his sanction and raisedit with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the Houseand by letter. He was sanctioned and taken to a tribunal,although the Department’s own legislation said that theprocess should be done in a paper-based format, aspeople with degenerative diseases are not always fit topresent themselves. The Department was not even awareof its own policy, and said so in an email to me. I foundthat particularly disturbing, and I continue to pursuethat case.

The Scottish National party is extremely worriedabout the provisions. Reducing the ESA WRAG ratefrom £102.15 a week to £73.10 a week from April 2017—a


[Hannah Bardell]

reduction of just under £30—will force sick peoplefurther away from getting back into work, despite thefact that the WRAG was created especially to supportthe ill and disabled back into work. The Conservatives’policies are doing exactly the opposite of what theyclaim they want to do.

The Chancellor said in the summer Budget that itwas a perverse incentive for ESA claimants to receivemore than JSA claimants without getting support toreturn to work. He cited the reduction in the number ofJSA claimants by 700,000 since 2010 while incapacitybenefit claimants have fallen by only 90,000, and saidthat 61,000 of those in the WRAG want to work. We donot dispute that, and we agree that more support mustbe put in place to assist those with illnesses and disabilitiesback into work. However, we do not understand theGovernment’s rationale for reducing the payments forthe ESA WRAG or universal credit. How will thatincentivise more people to work? Perhaps the Ministercan help us.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has told us thatmore than 493,000 disabled people are assessed as notbeing fit for work, 248,000 of them with mental andbehavioural problems, 86,000 with diseases of themusculoskeletal system and connective tissue and 8,000with progressive and incurable conditions such asParkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and other serious anddegenerative diseases. The DBC has said that thoseliving with long-term conditions are struggling to get byon the current rate of ESA. For the Government to cutit further will surely put them further into poverty anddeprivation. The Conservative manifesto committed tohalving the disability employment gap, but it is myparty’s contention that the reduction in the ESA WRAGcomponent will in fact present more barriers to thosewith disabilities who are trying to get back to work.

Mencap has said that households that include a disabledperson will be hit much harder than others. Given that athird of them already live below the poverty line, theadditional reduction in income will have a devastatingimpact on those most in need of Government support.The Government’s own figures already show that overthe past year, the number of disabled people living inpoverty has increased by 300,000. I am astonished thatthe Minister can even consider taking a small additionalpayment away from the ill and disabled when they arestruggling to deal with the challenges of their condition.

Given the Government’s own admission that the vastmajority of people in the WRAG want to work, theyshould be protecting any benefit that will help breakdown the barriers to work. The SNP has been sent hereto defend our people from further hardship, to protectthem from poverty and to secure a fair, just and sustainablepathway to prosperity. We will not find that in this Bill.I call on Members on both sides of the Committee tovote with the SNP to remove these unscrupulous plans.

2.15 pm

Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth)(Lab): It is good to see you again, Mr Streeter. I paytribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondseyand Old Southwark for his introductory speech, especiallygiven the circumstances.

I stand to speak against clause 13. Are we consideringclause 14 at the same time?

The Chair: Not at the same time, but let us now agreethat this can develop into a clause 13 stand part debateat the same time as considering amendment 139.

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful for that clarificationand for your leeway, Mr Streeter.

I am grateful to the various organisations, charitiesand many individuals who have contacted me with theirpersonal stories about how they believe these changesto ESA WRAG support will affect them. I particularlymention Parkinson’s UK, Macmillan Cancer Support,Leonard Cheshire Disability, the RNIB, the DisabilityBenefits Consortium, Scope, Inclusion London, UnitedResponse, Mind and the Richmond group. Collectively,those disability and health organisations represent morethan 15 million people in the UK who are disabled orhave a serious long-term condition.

We want to prevent the cuts to the work-relatedactivity component of employment and support allowance.We believe it is unjust and unfair that disabled people,and people with serious health conditions who havebeen assessed as part of the work capability assessmentprocess as not fit for work and placed in the work-relatedactivity group, are having their social security supportcut by nearly £30 from £102.15 to £73.10. There iscompelling evidence from the independent Extra CostsCommission, which analysed the additional costs facingdisabled people and found that, on average, they spendan extra £550 a month associated with their disability.

The Government’s proposed cuts affecting people inthe ESA WRAG are on top of the whole host of othercuts in social security support for disabled people since2010. The Hardest Hit coalition has estimated that, by2018, £23.8 billion will have been taken from 3.7 milliondisabled people. There were 13 policy changes under theWelfare Reform Act 2012, including changes in theindexation of social security payments from the higherretail prices index to the lower consumer prices indexand the 1% cap on the uprating of certain working-agebenefits, which has cut £9 billion from 3.7 millionpeople’s social security support. People on incapacitybenefit have been reassessed, which has taken another£5.6 billion. The time for which disabled people in theESA WRAG are able to receive support has beenlimited, cutting another £4.4 billion. The reassessmentof disabled people receiving disability living allowanceto determine whether they are eligible for personalindependence payment means that another £2.62 billionhas been taken. That is on top of the provisions in theBill, and we should not forget the cuts to social care,which are currently up to £3.6 billion and predicted tobe £4 billion by 2020. Disabled people rely very muchon support through social care.

In light of the significant existing cuts, will the Ministerconfirm whether the Government have undertaken acumulative impact assessment on the latest proposedcuts affecting disabled people, in light of the requirementsunder the Equality Act 2010 and the Equality andHuman Rights Commission’s work on cumulative impactmodelling?

This morning, the Exchequer Secretary mentionedthe importance of controlling welfare and social securityspending. The UK currently spends 1.3% of GDP on


disabled people. Out of 32 European states, we rank19th in what we provide to disabled people. I did nothave the information at my fingertips this morning, butfor families and children it is slightly worse at 1.1%—23rd out of 32 European countries. We are a wealthycountry, and to build our recovery on punitive measuresagainst disabled people, vulnerable children and familiesis appalling.

The Government’s impact assessment on the changesto the work-related component of ESA—apart frombeing delayed, so that Members were unable to scrutiniseit before Second Reading—is very limited in its analysis.For example, although the assessment estimates thatapproximately 500,000 people and their families will beaffected by the cut to ESA WRAG support, there is noanalysis of the impact that will have on the number ofdisabled people who will be pushed into poverty. Weknow that disabled people are twice as likely to be inpersistent poverty as non-disabled people and that 80% ofdisability-related poverty is caused by the extra coststhat I have mentioned. Last year there was a 2% increasein the proportion of disabled people living in poverty,which is equivalent to more than 300,000 disabled peoplepushed into poverty in one year. Given that half a millionpeople will be affected, according to the Government’sown impact assessment, and will lose 30%, or nearly athird, of their income, what is the Government’s estimateof the increase in the number of disabled people livingin poverty?

Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury)(Lab): My hon. Friend is making a very powerfulspeech. She has come to the Committee relatively late. Iknow that this is an area of expertise for her, butperhaps I can put on record the evidence that was givento us before she was on the Committee. It was essentiallythat if the Government are trying, as they put it, to“incentivise”people on employment and support allowanceinto work by cutting their benefits so that they live onthe same level as JSA claimants, it will mean that theyare ignoring the fact that people on ESA take longer toget into work. They may well find themselves in a crisisover the winter, when they need a new coat, becausethey have been unemployed that much longer. Peopleclaiming ESA are recognised by the system as not beingfit for work.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes an absolutelypertinent point; in fact, I was going to come on to that,so she must have read my mind. On Second Reading,the Secretary of State stated that“the current system discourages claimants from making the transitioninto work”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1258.]

But what about people with progressive conditions suchas Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis or motor neuronedisease? There is no chance that people with thoseconditions will get better, but they have gone throughthe work capability assessment process and been placedin the work-related activity group. Are the Governmentseriously saying that this measure is going to incentivisethat group of people into work? How many people withprogressive conditions such as those will be affected?Given that, and the fact that in 2014 45% to 50% ofESA appeals were upheld, will the Government finallyaccept that in addition to being dehumanising, the workcapability assessment is not fit for purpose and needs acomplete overhaul?

The impact assessment has estimated that, by 2021,approximately £640 million a year will have been cutfrom social security support to disabled people, with£100 million a year to be provided in unspecified supportto help disabled people into work. If the Governmentare serious about supporting disabled people into work,what measures are in place? This is exactly the pointthat my hon. Friend the Member for Islington Southand Finsbury was making.

What measures are in place to ensure that there arejobs for those disabled people who are able to work?What are the estimates of the impact on the employmentof disabled people, how this will impact on theGovernment’s target to reduce the 30% disabilityemployment gap—it is actually 34% in my constituencyin Oldham—and how many employers will be engaged?I hope that it is more than the current 68 active employersfrom the Disability Confident campaign. The campaignhas been going for two years and yet only 68 employersare currently active in it; 33 of those are existing disabilitycharities. I hope it will be more than that, but why wasthis not included in the impact assessment process?

What exactly is the “work” bit in the Welfare Reformand Work Bill? We have heard about reporting onapprenticeships and about different aspects of reporting.But what is the link to ensuring that disabled people areable to go into jobs before they have a third of theirweekly income deducted?

On the Thursday before the August bank holiday,five months after the Information Commissioner hadruled that the Government must publish data on thepeople on incapacity benefit and on ESA who had diedbetween November 2011 and May 2014, the Governmentfinally published these data. They revealed that thedeath rate for people on IB/ESA in 2013 was 4.3 timesthat of the general population, and had increased from3.6 times in 2003. People in the support group are6.3 times more likely to die than the general populationand people in the work-related activity group—the peoplewhose support the Government are seeking to cut—aremore than twice as likely to die. The figure is actually2.2 times more likely to die than the general population.

The Government have, regrettably, continually maligned,vilified and demonised people on disability and othersocial security benefits. The language around callingpeople shirkers and scroungers has been picked up andused in many media outlets. In 2010 the instances of useof the term “scrounger”by the mainstream press increasedto 572—more than 330% from 2009—and it has stayedat this level. Language is so important, and the way thatsocial security claimants—particularly people withdisabilities—are portrayed in the media is so important.The innuendo that people with a disability or illnessmight be “faking it” or are “feckless” is quite franklygrotesque and belies the epidemiological data. Incapacitybenefit and ESA are recognised as good populationhealth indicators. I can say that as a former publichealth consultant. I have experience of this and I haveworked in this field. The release of the Government’sown data, which show that this group are more likely todie than the general population, proves that point. Thisgroup of people are vulnerable and need care andsupport, not humiliation, from us.

Once again the cart is being put before the horse:make cuts in support and cross your fingers that somethingturns up for disabled people. That also applies to people


[Debbie Abrahams]

on low incomes. The policy flies in the face of theConservative party’s pledge to protect disabled people’sbenefits. All last week’s warm words at the Tory partyconference are just that if they are not followed up byaction.

With this cut to the ESA WRAG support withoutanything to replace it, the Government are condemningmore people with disabilities and their families to livingin poverty and I predict, unfortunately, that more tragedieswill undoubtedly happen. I urge the Government andall members of the Committee to think again and voteagainst clause 13 standing part of the Bill.

The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel): What apleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and OldSouthwark for starting the debate and for his contribution.He has made some very relevant points in terms of howGovernment can continue to support people with disabilitiesto get into employment. He has touched on the fact thatthe Government have made a very solid commitment toincreasing the employment of people with disabilities.He and other hon. Members touched on many of theschemes that the Government have undertaken to supportpeople with disabilities and health conditions to getback into work and to participate fully in society. Thatis why we made a solid commitment in this year’sBudget to spend more than £310 million over the nextfour years to support people. Coupled with the increasein work incentives in universal credit, this will not onlyhelp to make claimants affected by the changes movecloser to the labour market, but will contribute to thecommitment to halve the disability employment gap.There will be bespoke schemes that are tailored toclaimants, to help them back into work. The DisabilityConfident campaign was mentioned. We have beenworking with employers to remove the barriers thatmight prevent disabled people from fulfilling theiraspirations.

2.30 pmIt is fair to say that we also recognise that it is difficult

to find the best way to improve support for people withhealth conditions and disabilities. It is challenging, andI do not think that any hon. Member in this room hasall the answers to that challenge. Of course, as a result,varying types of support are required to help thesepeople move into work. That is why the Departmentoffers a flexible range of support to help people getback into work, ranging from personal individual supportfrom Jobcentre Plus work coaches to Work Choice,Access to Work, and the flexible support fund. In theautumn we intend to put out further details on support,and that will be informed by discussions with stakeholders.That will also build on the evidence coming out of arange of pilots that the DWP is already testing.

Neil Coyle: It is welcome to know that more big detailis emerging, but it is disappointing that that detail is notbefore the Committee, which I think would be right andproper. We had a case this morning where, similarly,there was not enough detail to make scrutiny possible.Will the Minister commit to a meeting with representativesof groups including the Disability Benefits Consortium,Scope and RNIB, to make sure that their views aregenuinely taken into account?

Priti Patel: I would be delighted to do exactly that. Iwould like to emphasise for the benefit of the wholeCommittee that that is exactly how good policy isdeveloped. It is developed through meeting stakeholdersand hearing of their experiences, and of how we can putinto implementation the practical support that peopleneed. We need to understand how we can do thatthrough our own current delivery mechanisms, whetherthrough jobcentres or our work coaches or throughsome of our schemes.

I would also like to touch on the commissioningstrategy that the Department holds right now. Thatincludes how the Department approaches the marketwhen looking at flexibilities for support provision, andalso how the marketplace itself can develop to includestakeholders and disability organisations to providethat support. Setting out guidance on this in particularis impractical, and obviously the commissioning strategystrikes the right balance in terms of engagement anddeveloping the right options.

Neil Coyle: Will those discussions, debates, consultationsand engagement include specific proposals around theWork programme and Work Choice reform?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman has raised a validpoint. Obviously, with the 2017 date which he touchedon coming up, this is about evolving the policy andlooking at future provision, as well as existing provision.That is an ongoing discussion that we are having withstakeholders right now in the Department. The hon.Gentleman also spoke about devolution. Devolutionprovides new opportunities for further integration, andlocalisation that is based on collaboration, rather thansetting out prescriptive approaches. As a Government,we are great believers that that is the appropriate wayforward. That reflects the reality that local authoritieshave a good understanding of these issues, and theywork with DWP and also with third parties andstakeholders at a local level.

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of many ofthe pilots that are taking place. Obviously we have theWorking Well pilot in Greater Manchester with thecombined authority, which is an excellent example ofhow support is being provided at a local level. There ismuch more in terms of other pilots in particular. By thetime that pilot is rolled out it will cover not just individualswith disabilities, but also up to 50,000 individuals with arange of health conditions, to support them. That willinvolve a budget of in excess of £100 million. Thisincludes something like £36 million from the combinedauthority alone.

Debbie Abrahams: The Minister and I met at theSelect Committee on Work and Pensions, of which Iwas a member until a couple of weeks ago. I asked inthat Committee about the concerns which unfortunatelyexist around that scheme, including that there was amandation of claimants to the Working Well scheme. Iasked for clarification about that, particularly beforethe pilot was due to be rolled out. The Royal College ofPsychiatrists is dead against it; it flies in the face of itscommitment to medical ethics. There are real concernsthere.


Priti Patel: Devolution in itself means that localauthorities, working with stakeholders and delivery partners,develop the right support and the right policies forimplementation to support individuals. It is not for theGovernment to be prescriptive about that. This is abouthow we can tailor support for individuals. That isexactly the right approach. This should be completelyfocused on providing the right level of support forpeople with health conditions as well as with disabilities—yes, to help them get closer to the labour market andback into work. When I came to the Select Committeethere was a broad discussion focused on the value ofwork and its importance, from the point of view ofhealth and wellbeing, for people’s health conditions aswell as for those with disabilities.

That brings me to some other points that were raised,such as employment and support allowance, the WRAGgroup and the support group, and people with terminalillnesses who, quite rightly, are being supported throughthe support group. The hon. Lady said she felt that theywere at a disadvantage, given the Government’s policy. Isuggest that in fact we are supporting them, throughESA, making sure they are being given the right level ofsupport. There is no compulsion for them to go back towork; they are being supported by the system. Throughall our welfare reforms we have made it clear that wewill continue to protect and support the vulnerable.That of course includes those who have terminal illnessesor people with progressive illnesses who are unable towork. That is exactly what the employment and supportallowance and the support group category, in particular,does.

Debbie Abrahams: When we met recently, I asked theMinister about the increase in sanctions for people onESA WRAG, which has increased since 2012 by 300%.The Minister has just stated that there is no compulsion;yet these people on ESA WRAG are being sanctioned.

Priti Patel: Sanctions are part of the process that theclaimant has with the jobcentre, in particular when itcomes to the contract they have and their discussions.All the parameters are made perfectly clear to claimantscoming to the jobcentres in terms of what is required ofthem. Those requirements are not unreasonable, giventhat they are work-related. In particular, they are thereto help the individual to get back into work. Nounreasonable requirements are placed on the individualat all.

Emily Thornberry: From my experience just of thosewho come into my surgery, what the right hon. Lady issaying is not in touch with reality. She has talked aboutthe importance of listening to people and I really thinkthat she should listen to this. For example, if someonehas a mental health condition which is a variable one,they will be put on the lower component of ESA, so onthe edge of being able to work, perhaps with support. Ifit is insisted that they go in for an interview, or that theydo voluntary work or fill out CVs at a period when theyare suffering depression or life is particularly chaotic,the experience of my constituents is that the localjobcentre is not sufficiently understanding and they willget sanctioned.

Priti Patel: I say to the hon. Lady that, first, sanctionsare there for a purpose: they encourage jobseekers inparticular to comply with reasonable requirements.

Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab): Will the Ministergive way?

Priti Patel: I will not give way. That is the purpose ofthe claimant commitment. Secondly, ESA was introducedback in 2008—as I am sure the hon. Member forIslington South and Finsbury will remember, althoughI was not a Member of Parliament then—and wasdubbed a radical reform package. The work-relatedactivity component at the time was intended to act as anincentive to encourage people to participate in employment.Clearly, we know that that has not happened. We aretherefore reforming our approach with DWP, throughour jobcentres and work coaches, to support individualsto get back into work.

Specifically with ESA, the hon. Lady will be awarethat the Secretary of State gave a speech just before theconference recess about how we can do more. It isabsolutely right that we do more to support people withhealth and mental health conditions, and work is alreadytaking place around the country. With that will comemore co-location of health services with our jobcentres,as well as more support and signposting in our jobcentres.

To return to my point about sanctions, I have no ideawhat the Labour policy on sanctions is, but they existas a reasonable requirement through the claimantcommitment. Our jobcentre staff work with claimantsto ensure that they are being supported in the right wayto get into employment. Our work coaches help themand signpost them through universal jobmatch. Theyget the support required. That is part of the claimantcommitment, which is made abundantly clear to theclaimant when they come into the jobcentre in the firstplace.

Neil Coyle: On the reasonableness of sanctions, Ihave had a mum come into my surgery who was sanctionedfor not attending an appointment at Jobcentre Plusbecause she was taking her daughter to hospital. Doesthe Minister conclude that that is reasonable?

When employment and support allowance wasintroduced, there were specific expectations about thenumber of people who would end up in the supportgroup, in the work-related activity group and on jobseeker’sallowance. Those potentialities were not hit for sometime, due to problems with the work capability assessment.Given that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensionshas been discussing completely overhauling the workcapability assessment, which was in our manifesto inMay, is the Minister seriously suggesting that the systemis perfect, and—

The Chair: Order. I think that is probably enough forone intervention.

Priti Patel: Gosh, where to start? To answer the hon.Gentleman’s question about the case that he presented,no. If he would like me to pick it up, I would be happyto do that for him. With regard to the system beingperfect, of course it is not; it is evolving over time, hencethe Secretary of State’s most recent comment abouthow we can do more to support people with healthconditions so that it becomes a case not of why peoplecannot work but of how we can support them to getback into work and with their health conditions inparticular.


Naz Shah: I could reel off a list of people who havecome to my constituency surgery. I am the former chairof the largest BME mental health charity in Bradford.Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely diabolicalto apply sanctions after testing somebody with mentalhealth difficulties and saying, “If you can tie yourshoelaces, you’re capable of going to work”? Does shebelieve that the number of people who have committedsuicide after sanctions have affected their mental healthproblems is acceptable?

Priti Patel: First, with regard to the hon. Lady’s longlist of cases, she is welcome to present them to me, and Iwill look at each one individually. Secondly, the workcapability assessment has evolved over time. Theorganisations that were originally contracted to undertakeit have changed. The point is that people should beassessed for what they can do; it should not be aboutwhat they cannot do. Where people have particularhealth conditions, it is right that we as a society supportthem either to get back to work or to get the treatmentthat they need. On her latter point, there is no causaleffect at all.

Debbie Abrahams: Again, this all emerged about theMinister saying that there was no compulsion. Thereclearly is compulsion for people on ESA WRAG. In myspeech I raised points about people with progressiveconditions such as MS, motor neurone disease andParkinson’s who are included in that group.

This debate has extended. We as a Parliament are stillwaiting for the Government’s response to the report ofthe Select Committee on Work and Pensions on sanctionsbeyond Oakley, which specifically considered ESA sanctions.It made a number of recommendations that unfortunatelysupport what has already been said.

The Chair: I call the Minister, on clause 13.

Priti Patel: Thank you, Mr Streeter. I will bring itback to clause 13. Finally, I would like to say whilespeaking to the clause that we have touched on the levelof support that is currently under way for people withhealth conditions and people with disabilities in particular.

2.45pmI touched on devolution, some of the pilots that are

taking place and some of the wide-ranging support wehave, such as personalisation pathfinders and many ofthe supports that are already taking place in our jobcentres,as well as funding from the European social fund, thatare helping with more localised provision. We believethat they are the appropriate ways forward in terms ofproviding the right level of support for individuals withhealth conditions. To come back to my earlier point, weintend to set out further details on support in theautumn, which will be informed by discussions andwork with, and evidence from, stakeholders. I urge thehon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark towithdraw the amendment.

Neil Coyle: It is important to reiterate the concernsabout the language on who is protected and who is not.We had some discussion about that before conferencerecess. The sheet in front of me says that 244,250 peoplewith mental and behavioural disorders in the work-relatedactivity group will be directly affected. Disabled people

have already experienced an impact—not that groupspecifically but more generally. Some 440,000 disabledpeople have to pay the bedroom tax or spare roomsubsidy and benefit rates have been frozen, includingthe vast majority of employment and support allowancebenefit paid to disabled people. We have also had thechange to disability living allowance. It is very frustratingto hear Ministers continue to claim that disabled peoplehave been protected when they clearly have not.

Having made that significant point, it would be interestingto see in more detail the concrete proposals that theGovernment are introducing. I am glad they are committedto working with stakeholders, although I am a little bitconcerned, having been a co-chair of the DisabilityBenefits Consortium policy group for some time andnot really having been consulted or engaged by them. Ihope the relationship has improved under this Ministerand that those discussions are constructive. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 8.Division No. 32]

AYESHeaton-Jones, PeterHinds, DamianMilling, AmandaOpperman, GuyPatel, rh Priti

Scully, Paul

Shelbrooke, Alec

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Whately, Helen

NOESAbrahams, DebbieBardell, HannahCoyle, NeilLynch, Holly

Phillips, JessShah, NazThornberry, EmilyWilson, Corri

Question accordingly agreed to.Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

UNIVERSAL CREDIT: LIMITED CAPABILITY FOR WORK

ELEMENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of theBill.

Debbie Abrahams: I appreciate that we have movedon, but there are many parallels between our previousobjections and our objections to clause 14 and thereasons why we will not be supporting it. The clauserelates to the limited capability for work element ofuniversal credit. I do not intend to repeat my argumentsfrom my previous speech, but having said that, very fewif any of the questions that I posed were answered bythe Minister. I would be grateful if at some stage shecould write to me if she cannot provide the answerstoday. I shall pose a few additional questions, particularlyabout the analysis of how the cuts will affect 400,000people with long-term conditions in the ESA WRAG—forexample, those with lung disease, cancer or stroke.What do we expect the cost to be for the NHS? TheGovernment are keen to make it a seven-day servicebut, with the additional demands, will that be achievable?


I have other points to make on the disability employmentservice, although my hon. Friend the Member for IslingtonSouth and Finsbury touched on some of them. Theratio of disability employment advisers in JCP is oneadviser to 600 disabled people. How will that be addressedto enable those disabled people who want and are ableto work to do so? How will we address the attitudinalissues that many disabled people face in trying to getinto work, and ensure support for employers to employdisabled people? Given that 90% of disabled peopleused to work, what are the Government doing to supportthem leaving the labour market prematurely?

I have mentioned the Select Committee report onsanctions. Another Select Committee report—it hasonly just had a response from the Government—isparticularly appropriate to the clause. The response onAccess to Work from the Government was published, Ibelieve, during the recess, or when we were about to gointo recess, nine months after the Select Committeepublished its report. Last year, Access to Work supportedonly 35,000 people going into and at work, of a totalworking age population of 7 million. If there is agenuine desire to reduce the disability employment gap,how on earth is it going to be managed on thoseridiculous levels of support? We heard from my hon.Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwarkon the Work programme and Work Choice. TheGovernment are currently retendering the Work programmecontract. How will the need for specialist provision beaddressed in the retendering process? I urge all hon.Members not to support clause 14.

Priti Patel: Clause 14 deals with universal credit andthe limited capability for work element. The clauseamends part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 toremove the reference to the limited capability for workelement. The change broadly mirrors the ESA changesintroduced in clause 13. The fact that a claimant haslimited capability for work will no longer exist as a needor circumstance in which regulations may be made foran element to be included in the calculation of theamount of an award of universal credit. The changewill apply only to those making new claims to UC andto existing claimants where they or their partners claimon the grounds of having a health condition or disabilityafter the change is introduced. Those claims alreadyeligible for the limited capability for work element at thepoint of the change will continue to be paid that elementas long as their circumstances remain unchanged andthey continue to be entitled to UC. Details of how thechange will be applied to existing claimants receivingthat element will be set out in regulations.

I cannot cover all the points that the hon. Lady hasmade and, if I may, I will write to her because there area couple of points that are more data-based that I thinkI can come back to her on. She mentioned the SelectCommittee report that is currently being considered bythe Department. We will continue to work with andrespond to the Work and Pensions Committee. When Icame to the Committee, we were discussing many areassuch as the Work programme and, in particular, its nextiteration. Of course, that is ongoing—it is not specificto the clause, per se, but discussions with stakeholdersare ongoing.

I emphasise that Jobcentre Plus has around 400 specialistdisability employment advisers supporting disabled people,particularly with regard to support packages such as

Work Choice and Access to Work and other schemes.Much more needs to be done as part of the continuingreforms, including on the long-term grassroots approachthat we take at our jobcentres to improve the level ofsupport and engagement.

Employers have an important role. The Departmentis working with employers not just to make the case, butto encourage them to be much more active as employersand to engage in employing people with disability andsupporting them in work. It is not just a case of gettingpeople with disability into work, but about sustainedemployment outcomes. That is the long-term objectivewe are focused on achieving.

Debbie Abrahams: The report on Access to Workmade a number of points about how it was not working.It was published in December, but we had a responseonly in September. We had Second Reading in July,which shows a total lack of commitment to supportingdisabled people, and yet the Government are preparedto take support away from them before they have ensuredadequate provision to enable them to work if they areable to do so.

Priti Patel: On the contrary, the measure is not aboutremoving support. It is about what more the Governmentare doing in terms of our commitment to supportingdisabled people to get them into employment. That isdown to a package of measures.

Emily Thornberry: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: I will not give way.It is very easy for Labour Members to claim that the

measure is about taking money away. It is about providingthe right kind of support for people with health conditionsand disabilities. It may not be the appropriate answerthat the hon. Lady wants to hear. The Government arecommitted to supporting more employment. Of course,this is a binary argument for her. We are supportingclaimants with a limited capability for work throughour employment provisions, our jobcentres and thespecialist disability employment advisers.

Neil Coyle: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: I will not give way. At the same time, weare working with employers through the schemes thatwe have, Access to Work being one example.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 8.

Division No. 33]

AYESHeaton-Jones, PeterHinds, DamianMilling, AmandaOpperman, GuyPatel, rh Priti

Scully, Paul

Shelbrooke, Alec

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Whately, Helen



Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.


Neil Coyle: On a point of order, Mr Streeter. Beforethe conference recess, the Minister committed to provideadditional information to my office about the monitoringof disabled people’s carers. I was reminded of that whenthe same offer was made just now. I do not believe Ihave received anything yet. Is there an update on whenthat will be provided?

The Chair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forraising that point of order with the Committee. Wouldthe Minister like to respond?

Priti Patel: I will, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon.Gentleman for his point of order. I have written to himand would be very happy to follow it up with him. I amnot sure what has happened to the letter. I know that Ihave signed it.

The Chair: All right. We move on.

Clause 15

UNIVERSAL CREDIT: WORK-RELATED REQUIREMENTS

Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 57, in clause 15, page 14,line 31, leave out paragraph (a).This amendment would keep the “work-focused interview requirementonly” for responsible carers of children aged one and two.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussthe following:

Amendment 62, in clause 15, page 14, line 31, leaveout paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) in section 19(2)(c) for the words “under the age of 1”substitute “who has not yet started primary school;”.

This amendment, taken together with amendment 63, would meanclaimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers arenot subject to work focused interviews or work preparationrequirements until their child starts school. From when a child startsschool, relevant claimants would be required to follow all workrequirements.

Amendment 58, in clause 15, page 14, line 36, after “2,”,insert “3 or 4”.This amendment would retain the current position for responsible carersof children aged three and four.

Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 14, line 37, leaveout paragraph (c).This amendment would retain the current position for responsible carersof children aged three and four.

Amendment 60, in clause 15, page 14, line 40, leaveout paragraph (a).This amendment would keep the current prescribed age of three yearsin universal credit regulations on the “work-focused interviewrequirement” for responsible carers of children in receipt of universalcredit.

Amendment 63, in clause 15, page 14, line 40, leaveout paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) in regulation 91 (claimants subject to work-focusedinterview requirement only), for the word “3”substitute“5 or when the child starts primary school”;

(b) in regulation 91A (claimants subject to work preparationrequirement) for the words “3 or 4” substitute “whohas not yet started primary school”;”.

This amendment, taken together with amendment 62, would meanclaimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carersare not subject to work focused interviews or work preparationrequirements until their child starts school. From when a child startsschool, relevant claimants would be required to follow all workrequirements.

Amendment 61, in clause 15, page 14, line 42, leaveout paragraph (b).wwThis amendment would keep the current age of child (which is threeor four) in universal credit regulations on the work-preparationrequirement for responsible carers of children in receipt of universalcredit.

Amendment 140, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, at endinsert—

“(d) in section 22(1) after “section” insert “, except if theclaimant is the responsible carer of a disabled childaged 3 or 4.

(1B) The Secretary of State must lay regulations determiningwhat a disabled child is for the purpose of this section and mayinclude, but will not be limited to a child—

(a) in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan,(b) in receipt of a Statement of Special Educational

Needs,(c) identified by their local authority as having special

educational needs,(d) with child in need status,(e) meeting the definition of disabled under the Equality

Act 2010.”To exempt a responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4 from allwork-related requirements.

3 pm

Corri Wilson: The Scottish National party has tabledthe amendments to mitigate the changes and to take thepressure off responsible carers with very young childrenwho receive universal credit. Currently, lone parentsneed attend work-focused interviews or work-relatedactivity only when their children are between the ages ofone and five, rather than having to actively seek work.The clause will mean that all parents will be expected tobe available for and actively seeking work by the timetheir youngest child turns three in order to claim universalcredit. We wish to stop those changes to the work-relatedrequirements as well as roll back the work-relatedrequirement for responsible carers set out in the WelfareReform Act 2012.

Amendment 57 would ensure that the work-focusedinterview requirement for responsible carers of childrenaged two and three would remain unchanged.Amendments 58 and 59 would remove the changes tothe work-preparation requirement. Amendments 60 and61 would remove the changes to the work-focused interviewrequirement and the work-preparation interviewrequirement. Amendments 62 and 63 would amend theWelfare Reform Act so that claimants would be subjectto no work-related requirements until their child beginsattending school.

A child’s most critical and vulnerable years should bebased on a foundation of support and love, which canmake all the difference to a child’s confidence andeducational attainment in later life, not to mention thebenefits of family and social cohesion. Forcing a parentto spend more time looking for work means they haveno choice if they want to spend more time with the childin its formative years. Where most parents are keen toreturn to work and to maximise their income, the provisionwill deprive parents of the choice of what is best fortheir child in the crucial early years of their development.Forcing parents to return to work before they are readycan be counterproductive and lead to financial instabilityas parents move in and out of work. That may lead toundue stress on parents, causing them to struggle withbalancing work and the care of their young child.


Increasing conditionality for universal credit is simplyanother ideological crusade against those who are ingenuine need of welfare support. It is, of course, notideal for an individual to be receiving benefits, but formany it is nevertheless essential and can mean thedifference between independence and absolute poverty.The stricter conditionality requirements contribute tomaking life intolerable for benefit claimants. In effect, itcondemns the lives of those on the benefits that enablethem to live independently, such as severely disabledpeople.

The extra requirements will bring with them an increasedrisk of claimants incurring sanctions. The effect ofbenefit sanctions are bad enough on individual benefitclaimants, but increasing conditionality for responsiblecarers, which puts them at further risk of incurringsanctions, will have the knock-on effect of condemningthe children they care for.

Carers UK has expressed concern over the effects ofthe clause on responsible carers of disabled children,partly due to the documented lack of childcare fordisabled children. Carers of children in receipt of thehigher or middle rate care component of disabilityliving allowance are exempt from the requirements, butthat does not protect carers of very young children withdisabilities when there are difficulties in identifyingthem in the early years.

It is imperative that lone parents and responsiblecarers are supported back into work, but not forced orsanctioned while their young child needs their supportat home. The difficulties that present themselves—accessingaffordable childcare, finding suitable support for a childor finding a stable job that allows a parent to have thetime needed with a young child—are huge. The everydaychallenges that face working families and young parentsare not as black and white as the Government wouldhave us believe. I therefore urge all Members to unitetoday with the SNP to remove the harsh conditionalityelements placed on parents while their children areyoung and effectively just babies.

Emily Thornberry: May I comment briefly on theSNP’s amendments? Although I applaud the sentimentbehind them, and if they are pressed to a vote, the hon.Lady can rely on our support, I want to put on recordthat it is not completely unconditional. The reality oflife within jobcentres, unfortunately—it should not belike this—is that jobcentres have to be told that their jobis to get particular groups of people into work. Aconstituent of mine came to see me and said, “My sonis four. I would like to go back to work, but when I go tothe jobcentre they don’t give me any help.” We shouldnot need to choose between the extreme proposed bythe Government and nothing. It should be possible tomake jobcentres know that their primary job is not justto get people off jobseeker’s allowance at all costs andto sort out the statistics as best they can, but to ensurethat they are sufficiently adaptable and flexible to helppeople who genuinely want to work to get into work,even if it means not fulfilling a target.

There will be people—particularly single women—whowant help at an early stage, perhaps because their mumlives next door and they have good childcare, or perhapsbecause they have a skill level that will allow them to getwork relatively easily with a bit of help from the jobcentre.They should not feel that the jobcentre believes it should

not look after them because they are not part of thetargets. I put in that caveat because the real world is notblack and white; there are people in between who maybe lost by the amendments. However, that is not to saythat in principle we will not support the SNP’s amendments.

Neil Coyle: I rise to speak to amendment 140, whichis about the intention expressed by the Government,including the Prime Minister, to protect disabled people.We have heard how the changes to disability livingallowance and employment support allowance will affectdisabled people directly. The amendment is designed toprotect the parents of disabled children aged three orfour.

The reason for tabling the amendment is that parentsand carers of disabled children aged three or four wouldbe allocated to the all work-related requirements groupif the Bill is enacted as drafted, which would requirethem to look for and be available for work. It would beuseful if the Minister could indicate whether that is anintentional provision, or whether it is incidental oraccidental. I do not think I am going to get thatacknowledgement at this stage.

There is an exemption for parents of children inreceipt of the highest or middle rates of the care componentof disability living allowance, but it will exempt only avery small number of parents, as few receive that benefitat that level. As many Members know, it is gettingharder for parents to access disability living allowance. Icertainly have experience of that from my postbag andsurgeries.

Many parents of disabled children choose to care fortheir child, and they best know their child’s needs andabilities. Those who wish to work often come up againstthe lack of appropriate childcare for disabled children,as we discussed earlier. As the shadow Minister indicated,it is also more expensive to access tailored childcare fordisabled children.

The rationale for the amendment is based on recentpolicy changes that require carers of children aged fiveto make a return to work. However, the Bill equatesparents of children aged three and parents of childrenaged five. There are obviously significant differencesbetween the two ages, which means that the Government’sassumption risks harming families, not least becausefive-year-olds are in primary education.

There is a read-across to the Childcare Bill, in whichthe Government are proposing to offer 30 hours of freechildcare to working parents. That could help, but theChildcare Bill as drafted does not properly account forthe barriers faced by families with disabled childrenwhen accessing childcare provision. For the same reasonthat we discussed this morning, it would be useful toknow how the Government intend to identify that parentsgenuinely have access to 30 hours of appropriate childcarefor a disabled child. They cannot just put a statutoryobligation on a council to provide it, because we knowit is not being delivered.

Many providers under the three and four-year-oldoffer are not able to meet the needs of children withmore complex needs, and the additional cost of childcarefor disabled children can limit the number of hours thatcan actually be accessed. The combination of thoseissues could severely compromise a parent’s ability tomeet the conditions of looking for work, which wouldnot be taken into account as the Bill is drafted. An offer


[Neil Coyle]

of support is not the same as appropriate supportgenuinely being available in practice. This concern hasbeen expressed by disability organisations in writtenand other evidence submitted to the Committee. Currently,carers of children in receipt of the highest or middlerate care component of DLA are exempted from the allwork-related requirements group. The amendment wouldextend that protection.

Department for Work and Pensions figures suggestthat there are currently just 53,000 claimants of DLAfor children aged nought to five years. If the amendmentis blocked, many carers of severely disabled childrencould be subject to conditions and sanctions, as we havealready discussed, despite the fact that it can take aconsiderable amount of time for parents and carers ofdisabled children to be able to access disability livingallowance. I do not think that it is the intention ofConservative MPs in particular to end up with theparent of a disabled youngster turning up in theirsurgery who is not able to access appropriate childcare,has work-related conditions in place and ends up beingsanctioned, and then has absolutely nothing coming in.I hope that that is not the intention, and I do not believethat it is. I hope that the Government will consider thisamendment.

My last point is that amendment 140 should beaccepted to reflect the fact that a disabled child’s needsand the specific level of support that they require maybe very hard to identify under the age of five. DLA isnot a brilliant basis for the exemption of carers. It is notsufficient. It can take months or years to access disabilityliving allowance—indeed, the Prime Minister has spokenof his own personal battle when trying to apply fordisability living allowance for his son. Personal experiencesshould be taken into consideration when pressing aheadwith this legislation. The amendment proposes usingadditional criteria to determine whether someone iscaring for a severely disabled child which go beyond asole reliance on claiming DLA at a certain level. Theseinclude statements of special educational needs, whicha small number of children under five receive; replacementeducation, health and care plans; those defined as childrenin need; and those who meet the Equality Act definitionof disabled.

Priti Patel: Clearly, this Government believe thatthere is much more that can be done to support allparents, including lone parents with young children, toprepare for and look for work. I will come on toamendment 140 and some of the points which have justbeen raised in a minute. Universal credit offers significantwork incentives over the current system of benefits,with the structure of UC designed to encourage andreward work. As universal credit is paid both in and outof work, many of the barriers to work start to beremoved. Claimants with young children in particularcan try suitable work depending on their own circumstancesin the knowledge that their universal credit claim willnot automatically close and, importantly, that theirpayments are adjusted systematically to take account oftheir earnings.

The support that we provide through work coachesshould help to make parents much more ready to moveinto employment—that, of course, is the point of work

coaches and of Jobcentre Plus in particular. JobcentrePlus plays a vital role in supporting parents to findwork via the core framework and interventions with adedicated work coach, helping those furthest from thelabour market to return or move closer to it. Workcoaches deliver a personalised service to best meet theneeds of the parent in relation to the local labourmarket conditions. That is why the Government areinvesting in extra work coach support. Work coacheswill be able to build a relationship with individuals,ensuring that work-related requirements are tailored totheir particular circumstances and capability, and arecompatible with their childcare responsibilities. Workcoaches also provide a gateway to access much of theother support that is available, which includes skillstraining and sector-based work academies, as well asfinancial support through the flexible support fund, inorder to remove some of the barriers.

The findings from the “Universal Credit at work”report shows that those on universal credit are workingmore compared with those on jobseeker’s allowance. Ofcourse, universal credit encourages claimants to findwork, to increase their earnings and support themselves.I know childcare has been touched upon in our broaderdebates today, but it is worth mentioning that parents ofdisadvantaged two-year-olds in particular are able toaccess to free early-years education. Parents may alsohave access to jobcentre funding to enable them toundertake the work preparation that is necessary whiletheir children are at that young age.

3.15 pm

I know that we have made this point previously, butuniversal credit will cover up to 85% of eligible childcarecosts from next year, irrespective of how few hoursparents work. That will help to cover about 500,000families at a cost of about £350 million a year. Parentswill also have the option of claiming tax-free childcare,which also has significant support. The hon. Memberfor Bermondsey and Old Southwark will know that forchildren with disabilities—the Exchequer Secretarymentioned this earlier—that support will be up to £4,000a year.

Access to childcare, including the flexibility and supportavailable to parents claiming universal credit, is obviouslyan important component. We will ensure, of course,that all work-related requirements are tailored to individualcircumstances and compatible with the childcareresponsibilities.

Neil Coyle: The Minister says that individualcircumstances will be taken into account. Will thatinclude monitoring or testing to see that a parent isgenuinely able to get access to the level of childcare thatshe says should be available?

Priti Patel: I will come on to that when I speak toamendment 140. If I do not answer that specific point,perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene on me.

Carers provide invaluable support for relatives, partnersor friends who through whatever circumstances are illor disabled. The carer element within universal credit isto support carers on a low income who provide care for35 hours or more each week for a severely disabled


person. That does not replace carer’s allowance, whichwill continue to exist as a separate benefit outsideuniversal credit.

Importantly, for those with less substantial caringresponsibilities, some work-related conditions may apply;but existing legislation is clear about how those shouldbe limited. Requirements for each claimant will dependon their individual capability, circumstances and caringresponsibilities. That comes back to my point that theexpectation will be based purely on the individual’spersonal circumstances. Most responsible carers of adisabled child aged three or four will not be subject tothe conditionality associated with the clause. Responsiblecarers who receive the carer element will fall into the“no conditionality” group in universal credit, whichmeans that no work-related conditions will be applied.

For carers who are not entitled to the carer element,different levels of conditionality will apply. Some whodo not qualify for it will be placed in the “no conditionality”group. These include full-time carers of a severely disabledperson who are unable to receive the carer elementbecause they are not the main carer, and carers of morethan one severely disabled person whose cumulativecaring responsibilities mean that it would be unreasonableto impose conditions on them. Also it would beunreasonable to place requirements on a claimant whois a carer of a severely disabled person for at least35 hours, or to do so where the care giver is responsiblefor a severely disabled person awaiting an assessmentfor a severe disability benefit.

I reiterate that it is important that there should beflexibility for other carers who do not fall into the“no-conditionality”group, because caring responsibilitiesmay change from day to day; I think we all recognisethat. Where there is a disabled child in the household,that will be factored into the decision making and theappropriate level of requirements. Any requirementswill be tailored.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwarkspecifically mentioned childcare provision for parentsof disabled children. He also mentioned the ChildcareBill, which is the responsibility not of my Departmentbut of the Department for Education. More informationwill follow about the delivery of the childcare element,in particular the 15-hour and 30-hour delivery measuresfor local provision. We want to ensure that provision isin place for the parents of disabled children. We have towork with the providers on the ground, which is somethingthat the Department for Education is doing now, workingwith stakeholders and consulting. That is part of awide-ranging piece of work. The hon. Gentleman isright to raise this point, however, and I will I pick it upwith my colleagues in the Department for Education toensure that that is featured in and factored into theirdiscussions with stakeholders.

Neil Coyle: Is the Minister suggesting that theGovernment’s expectation is that parents of a disabledchild who are unable to access 30 hours of childcarewould not be subject to the conditionality that might beimposed were such support to be in place?

Priti Patel: First, we have to ensure that the provisionis in place, which is part of the wider childcare offering,and work is taking place through the Childcare Bill,

including on delivery. Importantly, this is about workingwith the parents of disabled children. We have to lookat individual cases to ensure that support is tailored forthem. There should never be a one-size-fits-all policy—weall recognise that—so through Jobcentre Plus and ourwork coaches we will look at all the relevant circumstancesof the individuals.

I urge the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnockto withdraw the amendment.

Corri Wilson: I was interested in the view of the hon.Member for Islington South and Finsbury on the jobcentresystem. I worked in the Department for Work andPensions for 20 years, and my experience is that jobcentrestaff work incredibly hard to get claimants into work.The main reason that claimants cannot get off benefitsseems to be that suitable jobs are not out there. Yearafter year, staff’s flexibility and autonomy have beendiminished. Staff are tied up with sanctions regimes, atthe expense of a focus on clients and getting them backinto work. That is one of the reasons why we want morepowers in Scotland, so that we can take control of oureconomy to boost economic levers that will help growour economy and create jobs to get people off benefits.Universal credit conditionality and changes for carerswill put an unacceptable and unnecessary pressure onfamilies. We will therefore press the amendment to avote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Division No. 34]

AYESAbrahams, DebbieBardell, HannahCoyle, NeilLynch, Holly


NOESAtkins, VictoriaHeaton-Jones, PeterHinds, DamianMilling, AmandaOpperman, Guy

Patel, rh PritiScully, PaulShelbrooke, AlecVara, Mr ShaileshWhately, Helen

Question accordingly negatived.Amendment proposed: 62, in clause 15, page 14, line 31,

leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—“(a) in section 19(2)(c) for the words “under the age of 1”

substitute “who has not yet started primary school”.—(Hannah Bardell.)

This amendment, taken together with amendment 63, would meanclaimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers arenot subject to work focused interviews or work preparationrequirements until their child starts school. From when a child startsschool, relevant claimants would be required to follow all workrequirements.

Question put, That the amendment be made.







Question accordingly negatived.Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 15, page 14,

line 36, after “2,”, insert “3 or 4”.—(Hannah Bardell.)This amendment would retain the current position for responsible carersof children aged three and four.


Division No. 36]





Question accordingly negatived.

Emily Thornberry: I beg to move amendment 101, inclause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—

‘(d) Insert after section 18“(18A) Guidance on lone parents(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, provide

guidance to Jobcentre Plus setting out how it should supportclaimants who are lone parents in meeting the work-relatedrequirements that they are subject to.”.’To require the Secretary of State to set out in regulation how JobcentrePlus should support claimant of universal credit who are lone parentsmeet the work-related requirements they are subject to.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussthe following:


‘(3) Claimants subject to new requirements as a result of themeasures contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this clause must,at a time no later than three months before subsections (1) and(2) come into force, receive written notification of the lone parentflexibilities issued as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.’To provide that anyone who becomes subject to new work-relatedrequirements as a result of the measures in clause 15 must be providedwith written notification of the lone parent flexibilities which the DWPissues as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.


‘(3) The Secretary of State must, at time no later than threemonths before subsections (1) and (2) come into force, issueguidance on the lone parent flexibilities to Jobcentre Plusmanagers, such guidance must include provision on the trainingof Jobcentre Plus staff in advance of the new work-relatedrequirements coming into force.’To require the Secretary of State to issue up to date written guidance toJobcentre Plus managers on the lone parent flexibilities, includingprovisions on the training of Jobcentre Plus staff.


‘(3) The Secretary of State may not impose a work searchrequirement on any claimant in receipt of Universal Credit, whois a lone parent, in circumstances which include but are notlimited to the following—

(a) the claimant’s adviser determines that there is an inadequatenumber of suitable employment vacancies withinreasonable daily travelling distance of the claimant‘shome;

(b) the claimant is responsible for the care of a childduring that child‘s school holidays, and it is notreasonable to expect the claimant to make alternativearrangements;

(c) the claimant is responsible for the care of a child duringany period in which that child is excluded from school,or is otherwise not receiving education pursuant toarrangements made by a local education authority,and it is not reasonable to expect the claimant tomake alternative arrangements;

(d) any child care expenses which would be necessarilyincurred by the claimant as a result of carrying outthe requirement imposed would represent anunreasonably high proportion of the income the claimantcould expect to receive while carrying out the requirementin question;

(e) the claimant is enrolled on a course of study leading toa vocational qualification, or is otherwise undertakingengaged in vocational training;

(f) the claimant has become a lone parent within the lastsix months;

(g) any other circumstances in which the claimant‘s advisermay consider the imposition of a work search requirementto be unreasonable in light of that claimant‘s individualcircumstances.’

To provide a statutory basis for flexibility to be applied in imposingwork search requirements on lone parents in receipt of Universal Credit.

Emily Thornberry: It is a pleasure to serve under yourchairmanship, Mr Streeter. I want to speak toamendments 131, 132 and 133. My hon. Friend theMember for Redcar (Anna Turley) tabled amendment 101,and to a certain extent the sentiment in that amendmentis incorporated in the other three amendments, so itmay not be necessary for me to speak specifically to it.In any event, my hon. Friend no longer sits on theCommittee. For the sake of simplicity, I will focus onamendments 131 to 133.

Amendment 131 arises because we have noticed acouple of paragraphs in clause 15, at the bottom ofpage 14, which are short but not sweet. They could havebeen overlooked, but they should not be. They introducesweeping changes to work search requirements placedon single parents with very young children and do so ina way that is extraordinarily unfair and poorly thoughtthrough. The Bill not only goes further than any changesintroduced by previous Governments but severs the linkbetween the time when a child starts school and thetime when that a child’s parent is expected to startactively seeking work.

Successive Governments of both parties have introducedchanges to expectations on parents, and the age atwhich a parent is expected to seek work has beenprogressively lowered from 16 down to 12, then to sevenand most recently to five. To a certain extent, it wasthought that there was a broad consensus to expectsingle mothers—it is usually single mothers—to workduring term time while their children were at school,


subject to appropriate childcare at a price they couldafford and working hours that would fit in aroundschool time. That does not seem unreasonable. Thatseems fine. It seems the sort of thing that very few singleparents would object to and that most of the public anda lot of children would want. It is a deeply personaldecision but, frankly, I think it would carry the majorityof the public on what is a fair expectation of singleparents.

3.30 pmHowever, the caveats that I put on those expectations

are not insignificant, and that is the point. One size doesnot fit all when it comes to helping single parents intowork. To a certain extent, the point that I made to theScottish nationalists earlier highlights that. A singleparent came to see me when the expectation was thatparents were to be actively looking for work when theirchildren were aged seven-plus. She wanted to workwhen the children were younger and felt that she wasnot getting the support of the jobcentre. It was for thatreason—the fact that no size fits all—that when myparty was in Government, it gave a clear undertakingthat no single parent would be forced into a job that didnot fit their circumstances. Now we have a Governmentwho are not prepared to continue that pact with singleparents. That is profoundly unfair, and wrong.

In extending work search requirements to single parentswith children over 12, the Government were right tointroduce “greater flexibilities” into the system; in otherwords, the expectation that parents look for work andthat that work should fit reasonably in with their lives.It is right that those flexibilities were given the strengthof regulations. Parents were expected to work, if theirchildren were over 12, so long as it fitted in with theirlives, and in order to make perfectly clear what wasexpected, that was put into regulations.

It was hoped that when the Welfare Reform Act 2012was passed those flexibilities would be carried over intouniversal credit, as they currently only apply to peopleclaiming jobseeker’s allowance. My predecessor, myright hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (StephenTimms), pressed the then Minister, the right hon. Memberfor Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), on that pointwhen that Act was debated in Committee. My righthon. Friend—who was also the Minister responsible forintroducing the lone parent regulation in 2008, so heknew what he was talking about—asked for reassurancethat the flexibilities would be carried over into the newregulations. In response, the then Minister said that theGovernment did not intend to change that. That wasgood. We were pleased and encouraged.

However, when the universal credit regulations werebrought forward the following year, we had a newMinister in place, the former Member for Fareham. Hewent ahead and changed the provisions, so universalcredit will not make allowances for the lives of singlewomen, except based on guidance that is too oftenoverlooked. There is a difference between guidance andregulations. Pressed to explain why the Governmenthad changed their hearts, the new Minister said:

“We have chosen to move the flexibilities from regulation toguidance. We think it more appropriate to rely on the discretionand judgment of our advisors to make the right decision forfamilies.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee,11 February 2013; c. 23.]

Concerns were expressed about the decision at the time,not only by my right hon. Friend but also by the chiefexecutive of Gingerbread, who argued that moving theflexibilities from regulations to guidance represented“a significant weakening of the status”.

It is worth exploring how far individual discretionhas worked. The former Minister said that he waschanging the flexibilities from regulation to guidance—froma statutory footing to soft law guidance—and hopefullyeveryone would proceed with good will and it would allbe fine. Well, it is not fine. I will give some examples ofhow it has not worked and of the significant weakeningof the rules with regard to the circumstances in a singleparent can be expected to work. We think that the rulesshould be put into regulations, and that staff should betrained in what the regulations mean. Those expected toabide by these new rules should be written to, and itshould be explained what the position is so that everybodyis clear. That is the reason for our amendments. Theweakening of regulations to guidance is just not working,and I will give some examples of why.

The Fawcett Society, in a paper that it produced lastyear, pointed out that“the rate of incorrectly imposed sanctions that are later overturnedat appeal is very high.”

That was for all claimants, but“for lone parents in particular, the proportion of sanctions overturnedat appeal is even higher than for other claimants (39 compared to28 per cent)…This raises serious questions about the trainingreceived by JCP and Work Programme service providers, as wellas about their ability to make appropriate referrals and decisionsabout sanctions.”.

If any other Government Department were failing,with a rate of 39% of its decisions being overturned onappeal, serious questions would be asked. The 39% whoare suffering that injustice are not just anyone; we aretalking about lone parents with children, who are wronglysanctioned. There is something seriously wrong. Theformer Minister said that it was appropriate to rely onthe discretion and judgment of advisers to make the rightdecision for families. I hope that the current Minister isclocking what I am saying here, because evidence is soimportant when making decisions on policy; it wouldseem that she is not, but perhaps someone can point outHansard to her later.

Priti Patel: I am listening.

Emily Thornberry: Good, I am glad. So, 39% ofsingle parents are having their decisions overturned onappeal. My point is that the discretion given to JobcentrePlus officials is not appropriate, and that it would bebetter, and right, to put the requirements into regulationsinstead, so that they are given legal standing. Discretionis not working. When nearly 40% of cases being overturnedon appeal, there is something wrong with the system.That is not rhetoric, it is the evidence, and somethingneeds to be done. The situation raises serious questionsabout the training of Jobcentre Plus staff and Workprogramme providers and their ability to make appropriatedecisions. To illustrate that point I will give the Ministera few stories from single mothers. Their personal detailsare disguised, but their cases are real.

There is a women called Geri; she is single motherand has a nine-year-old daughter. Her jobseeker’s agreementsets out the requirements that she must meet as acondition of receiving her benefits, which are that she


[Emily Thornberry]

must apply for 21 jobs a week, either full or part-time,and be prepared to travel up to an hour each way for ajob. Emma has a 10-year-old son and lives in Bristol.Her jobseeker’s agreement requires her to look for workin London, which is a 90-minute commute each way,despite the fact that the cost of a season ticket wouldexceed £5,000 a year. Furthermore, the extended hoursof travel would make it impossible for her to take herson to school and pick him up at the end of the day.

A woman called Fiona had her jobseeker’s allowancestopped for three months because she turned downnight shifts, which she had to do because she could notfind suitable childcare for her daughter. Elaine wasthreatened with sanctions by her Work programmeprovider when she said that she could not attend back-to-work courses during the summer holidays. She hastwo young daughters whom she cannot leave on theirown at home. She was offered no help with childcarecosts by the provider of the voluntary work that she wassupposed to be doing in order to make her fit for work.

I have heard stories of single parents being threatenedwith sanctions if they do not attend appointments thatclash with the school run. I have heard stories fromsingle parents who have been sanctioned for missingappointments in order to stay at home when theirchildren are unwell. I want to point to the evidence andtry to help the Minister to make the right sort of socialpolicy, so I point out that Islington Law Centre has a100% success rate when challenging sanctions imposedon my constituents, which I really think should giveMinisters pause for thought. The centre represented,for example, a pregnant woman who was sanctioned formissing an appointment when she was so unwell withmorning sickness that she was in hospital.

Debbie Abrahams: To add to my hon. Friend’s list, Ihave a constituent with three primary school age children,all at different schools. She was compelled to be atappointments when she was trying to get her children tothose different schools—she was always given appointmentsthat made it absolutely impossible for her to get to thejobcentre.

Emily Thornberry: Members on both sides of theHouse may well have examples of such sanctions frompeople who have come to their surgeries. In particular,single parents are being sanctioned in an attempt topush them into work that is completely inappropriategiven their caring responsibilities.

I come back to the distinction between regulationsand guidance, which I think is important. It may seemacademic to some, but I can assure Ministers that it isnot at all academic to the women who are feeling theimpact of the lack of adequate flexibility within thesystem and the lack of understanding of what the rulesreally are. For our purposes as legislators, it is importantto make the distinction between the legal force of regulationsand of guidance. Regulations have the force of statute,as they are introduced through secondary legislation,but guidance does not. Guidance is really soft law, andthese women do not need soft law.

The principle was summed up quite well in the SupremeCourt judgment of R (on the application of Alvi) v.Secretary of State for the Home Department—it is

known as the Alvi case—in which the distinction atissue was between immigration rules and informal guidance.Lord Clarke wrote in his judgment:

“It seems to me that, as a matter of ordinary language, there isa clear distinction between guidance and a rule. Guidance isadvisory in character; it assists the decision maker but does notcompel a particular outcome. By contrast a rule is mandatory innature; it compels the decision maker to reach a particularresult.”

As I say, guidance has been called soft law. As was saidin Ali v. London Borough of Newham,“the court should be circumspect and careful so as to avoidconverting what is a non-binding guidance into, in effect, mandatoryrules.”

We all know why we are talking about guidance andregulations. We all know that the couple of little paragraphson page 14 of the Bill will be going to court and will bejudicially reviewed, so we need to be quite clear aboutwhat the Government want to do. Our job, as HerMajesty’s Opposition, is to look carefully at what theGovernment intend and at what is fair. We all know thatwhat is said in this Committee is of relevance to thefuture court cases that will be coming because of themanifest unfairness that will result from the clause.

Let us therefore be clear. I am sure the Minister willtell us how fair all this is, and how everyone is proceedingwith good will. But we have heard that before. We had apromise that people in jobcentres would exercise discretionfairly, and so on. We have had enough of that. Theyhave not been doing things fairly, and it has been goingwrong. We would now like clear rules so that we allknow where we stand—both the single mothers who aretrying to balance their caring responsibilities and wantto find appropriate work, and the people in jobcentreswho quite often feel compelled to force women intowork. Any new rules will not be properly understoodunless they are made clear. If they turn out to be unfair,they can be challenged.

Under the system that we have, a single mother whoputs her responsibility to her children ahead of herrequirements under the claimant commitment couldlose several weeks of income as a result of an unfairsanction. That means that that family—those children—willnot have any money for food. That is a desperatesituation, so we need to make sure that something likethat is done only in extreme circumstances and that itcan be properly justified. That sanction may well beoverturned—as I say, if Members come to IslingtonLaw Centre they will find a 100% success rate—but inmany cases the damage will already have been done.Does the Minister not agree that regulations, whichhave the force of law, could protect against some ofthose injustices? If so, they are worth having.

I turn now to the amendments. As things stand, thereare two problems. First, there is inadequate knowledgeof lone parent flexibilities: it is not known what it isreasonable to expect from jobcentre staff and Workprogramme providers. Secondly, single parents themselvesmay lack knowledge of what would reasonably be expected,so it makes it more difficult to challenge the unreasonabledemands that are sometimes placed on them.

3.45pmOur amendments 131 and 132 seek to tackle those

problems. Amendment 131 would require that any singleparent affected by the changes in clause 15 must receive


written notification of their rights no later than threemonths before the changes come into force. Let us allknow. What is the Minister scared of? Let us simply tellpeople, “The rules have changed. We will now expectyou to do this, that and the other,” so that peopleunderstand.

Amendment 132 would also require proactive effortson behalf of managers and staff to ensure that anyoneresponsible for dealing with single parents is aware ofthe rules. What is wrong with that? The rules should beknown by everyone. Surely we can have a commitmentfrom the Government that people will be trained andwill know the rules so that we all know where we standand that they must be adhered to.

Perhaps most importantly, amendment 133 wouldincorporate the major flexibilities in the 2008 regulationsinto the Bill. The Minister may remember that at thebeginning of this rather long speech I talked about the2008 changes being made through guidance rather thanregulations, but they are not working. We are thereforereintroducing them in this amendment, so that we allknow where we stand and so that they have the force oflaw. They include requirements that single mothersshould not be forced to work during school holidays oroutside school hours; that they should not be requiredto work if their earnings cancel out the childcare coststhat they would be forced to incur; and that advisersshould take into account whether there is an adequatenumber of suitable job vacancies within reasonabletravelling distance of someone’s home. The amendmentwould also build on the 2008 regulations with some newmeasures, which I think are called for under thecircumstances.

First, the amendment would provide an exemptionfrom all work-search requirements for parents who havebeen single for the last six months. In other words, if awoman’s husband leaves her and she has a number ofkids who need to be looked after, and suddenly her lifeis devastated, she could have a period of six months justto look after her children and herself. She could getherself and her family back on their feet without beingthreatened with sanctions from the jobcentre, so thatshe can do her best and look after her family’s wellbeing,including their emotional wellbeing. What is wrongwith that? What is the argument against that? Thatwould no doubt be a difficult time for the family, and itis difficult to see how such a sensitive situation could behelped by forcing a mother to comply with box-tickingexercises under the threat of sanctions. [Interruption.]As is being muttered behind me—and quite rightly—whatif she is being beaten up?

Secondly, the amendment would exempt single parentsfrom work-search requirements if they were undertakingvocational study or training. Again, that seems to be areasonable flexibility that was one of the great strengthsof the old system, under income support, which allowedsingle mothers to make best use of their children’s earlyyears to improve their skills, not to mention their long-termearning prospects. However, the proposed changes willnot do that; rather, jobcentres will be pushing womeninto work, not training, which of course has the advantageof term-time hours. During that time when the childrenare small, those mothers would be able to upskill themselvesso that they could get better paid, good-quality workthat will last. We are always talking about this, so whynot allow single parents to do that?

Under the new regime, such flexibility is gone, andthat is wrong. Single parents are now being shoehornedinto the first available job without any regard being givento its sustainability or suitability. We have all heardcountless examples of women being pushed into low-paidinsecure work because, often, it is the only type of workavailable. Why are we stopping single parents gettingthe skills that they need? Why are we doing that?

I had a look at the Government’s Universal Jobmatchsite this morning. I do not know whether the Ministerhas ever done that. I searched around the N1 areapretending to be a single mother to see what kind ofjobs would be available for me today. One job was theexecutive vice-president of a media company for £120,000a year—that was good—but I could not see many of thesingle mums from the Market estate being shortlistedfor it. I had a look for others and found a zero-hoursjob in a bakery, another zero-hours job as a salesassistant in a 99p shop and several jobs as retail assistants,kitchen assistants, carers and cleaners, none of whichpaid more than the minimum wage and none of whichwas term-time only.

That is a Government website that is supposed to bethere to help, presumably, mothers—single mothers—getinto work, but it has no facility to search for term-time-onlywork. If the Minister really wants single mothers ofvery young children to go into work, why is that facilitynot on the website? If he is serious about getting womeninto work, why does he not have on a job-search site afacility to search for term-time work—leaving aside thefact that there is no work? Even if there was work, noone would be able to find it on the Government website.

As Gingerbread puts it, it is therefore little wonderthat those taking on temporary or zero-hours contractshave a greater risk of cycling back into the benefitssystem at a later date. One in five single parents enteringemployment will churn out of work again within 12 months.That is the reality of working. If Ministers really careabout the long-term prospects of single mothers andreally want children to be inspired by the example ofseeing their parents in work, they ought to recognise thevalue of a system that is sufficiently flexible to allowsingle parents to develop their skills and to move intowork at a pace that is suitable for their children. TheGovernment should have term-time work on their ownwebsite, as well as having work available on it. If theGovernment were serious about such things, that iswhat they would be doing.

Amendment 133 suggests some common-sensesafeguards that Labour Members believe should bebuilt into the legislation in order to protect single mothersfrom being forced into inappropriate work withoutregard for their individual circumstances or needs. IfMinisters will not support the safeguards, I hope thatthey will explain their position, because I can think ofno reasonable argument against these very reasonableamendments.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady has covered a number ofpoints, but the one that I want to focus on is that it isright for us to support women into work. As the Committeemust recognise, we have more women in work than everbefore—the rate is now 68.8%. The purpose behind theGovernment’s changes is support for lone parents inparticular to get into work without being prescriptiveand in particular by recognising that our work-focusedinterview approach, with our work coach support, is a


[Priti Patel]

key enabler of the policy and, importantly, is investingin the quality of learning and development through ourjobcentres. That will give lone parents in particular theright level of support and guidance that they require tofind work.

Work coaches, as part of their role and when indiscussion with claimants, and lone parents in particular,at the work-focused interviews, will identify the barriersto work and, importantly, the type of support required.That means taking into account the individualcircumstances of lone parents and responsible carers,including care and responsibility for their child or children,and in particular identifying the type of work-relatedrequirements possible as a result. The aim is to developa relationship in which claimants can discuss theirissues and circumstances as they emerge. People whohave children recognise that circumstances change allthe time. Helping to ensure that requirements remainreasonable and appropriate is our priority.

Furthermore, the parents should feel that they areinvolved in the development of the requirements, whichof course are recorded and noted in the claimantcommitment, by contributing the steps that they thinkwill give them the best chances of finding work. We willof course only ever have requirements—based aroundwork coaches and jobcentres—that are reasonable inlight of the appropriate circumstances.

We recognise that where people are in training therequirements are tailored around that. Training itselfcan be part of work preparation requirements, so ofcourse it will be relevant to the claimant commitmentthat is being established as well. It is also important torecognise that it would not be appropriate—and wouldbe difficult and wrong—to set out a uniform level ofsupport that would meet the needs of individuals. Universalcredit has been constructed in a way that promotesdiscretion, tailoring and flexibility. The existing legislationprovides work coaches with the flexibility to tailor, limitor even temporarily lift requirements that are entirelybased on personal circumstances. The range ofcircumstances is broad. We will ensure that any work-relatedrequirements are tailored to the individual’s circumstancesand, importantly, are compatible with childcareresponsibilities.

Neil Coyle: The Minister says that the Departmentwill ensure that the requirements on individuals areflexible and sensitive. In our surgeries and case loads weare already seeing circumstances where that has notbeen the case to date. The Minister suggests that suchindividuals should not be experiencing sanctions ordisincentives, but what additional safeguards or measureswill be put in place to ensure that that does not happen?

Priti Patel: It is not about the guidance that goes outone day to jobcentres or work coaches. We are routinelyworking with our work coaches and our jobcentres tomake sure that they are supporting individuals throughthe advice that goes down to them, through the guidancethat is sent out, through what is being distributed fromthe Department and also through training. That trainingis absolutely vital, in particular with regards to workcoaches. I emphasise that point. I know that commentshave been made about jobcentres not supporting peopleto get into work, but I would argue against that. I have

sat in on many interviews myself, including with loneparents, and I have seen commitments that are tailoredto that individual’s circumstances. In fact, I was inEdinburgh two weeks ago; I go to jobcentres on aweekly, very regular basis. It is absolutely the rightapproach that the work coaches have the freedom andflexibility to support the individual, and also to recognisethe labour market conditions locally.

Neil Coyle: The Minister is very generous in givingway. One of the concerns expressed by Jobcentre Plusstaff—certainly those in my own constituency and thoseI have been chatting to elsewhere—is that once anagreement is in place with an individual, very littleflexibility or adviser discretion is possible in order toprevent the imposition of a sanction where somethingcannot be met. The example I gave earlier has beenresolved, and I am very grateful for the Minister’s offerto intervene. In that case, because there was an agreednumber of job interviews that had to be attended, whenthe mother ended up having to go to hospital, shebecame subject to sanction. There is a point in theprocess where an individual becomes subject to sanctionfor not being able to meet an agreed requirement due tounforeseen circumstances, not due to deliberate non-compliance with a plan. That is where the challenge lies.

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that,and obviously that is a highly relevant and pertinentpoint. This is why we should not undermine the autonomyof those local decision makers by putting things inbinding statutory guidance. They need to be supported,and the Department needs to support them to offer thatflexibility as well. We all recognise that personalcircumstances and individual circumstances change. Iam pleased to hear that the case that the hon. Gentlemanmentioned has been resolved, but of course we want toavoid such situations in the first instance. We can onlyachieve that if work coaches work with the individualclaimant and understand their circumstances. Obviously,the claimant needs to be very up front and say that theircircumstances are changing and explain what is goingon, because life is not one-size-fits-all for everybodyand obviously circumstances change.

Emily Thornberry: Of course I understand that localjobcentres ought to reflect local demand, but I ask theMinister to focus on the question of what would bewrong with having it set out in the regulations that alone parent should not be obliged to go into work orlook for work if there is an inadequate number ofsuitable employment vacancies within reasonable dailytravelling distance of the claimant’s home. The sixexamples that I listed in amendment 133 give flexibilityand at least give a baseline of fairness and do not allowpeople simply to have ultimate power over small childrenand single parents.

4 pm

Priti Patel: I disagree with the hon. Lady’s latterpoint. Importantly, the labour market changes. Vacanciescome up every day of the week. It is relevant to theindividual, their circumstances and the ability for themto choose what they feel is best for them. They mightwant to be in training, which might be, for example,30 minutes or an hour or require some travel. Theremight be a work placement or a work experience


opportunity. It is right with the labour market flexibilitiesthat we have those flexibilities in place. On the pointraised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and OldSouthwark, if an individual is unable to meet therequirements—this relates to the local flexibilities—theywould come into the jobcentre to explain why that is thecase and that is therefore fed into the process.

Neil Coyle: The challenge is that the flexibility doesnot exist now for individual advisers because of thesystem imposed towards the end of the previous Parliament.Individual advisers’ discretion was removed in order tohave a more automated system that has developed intothe experience of more sanctions. Is the Minister suggestingthat that process will be reviewed or changed? Withoutthat, the good intention will not be delivered in practice.

Priti Patel: Work coaches have the flexibility in universalcredit to respond to individual circumstances and areusing their discretion—

Debbie Abrahams rose—

Priti Patel: I will not give way. Work coaches areusing their discretion to tailor appropriate requirementswithout the need to set the types of support in regulationsor to make guidance statutory. I have touched on thisalready; the Department routinely upgrades guidance,advice and training, and shares those resources not justlocally, but with stakeholders. We want to have thehighest possible standards and we are working to achievethat. Universal credit responds to individual circumstances.Accepting the amendments would result in an unnecessary,costly and overly bureaucratic imposition. It would notenhance the individual claimant’s choice, opportunitiesand the support that is made available to them throughwork coaches. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdrawthe amendment.

Emily Thornberry: We wish to push these amendmentsto a vote. I have listened carefully to the Minister anddespite what she may say about local flexibilities, thenational picture is that lone parents are having 39% oftheir sanctions decisions overturned on appeal. Therefore,the system is not fair. We want a better system in placewith proper regulations that have legal standing.

The Chair: Just to be clear, amendment 101 wouldhave to be put first. The hon. Lady could withdraw thatand come to the others at the end of our deliberationson clause 15, which will only be a few moments away.

Emily Thornberry: That would probably be the bestway of proceeding. We can vote on amendments 131,132 and 133 but not on amendment 101. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Emily Thornberry: I beg to move amendment 108, inclause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—

‘(d) after section 24 (imposition of requirements) aftersubsection (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, makeprovision to ensure that where a claimant is the responsible carerfor a child who is aged under five they are subject to no work-relatedrequirements unless it is possible to make arrangements foraffordable and appropriate childcare for the claimant’s child.

(5B) The regulations in subsection (5A) must provide adefinition of “affordable and appropriate childcare”.”’This amendment would ensure that responsible carers of children agedunder five would not be subject to work-related requirements unless theyhad affordable and appropriate childcare in place for their child.

The Chair: Amendment 93 will no longer be discussedwith amendment 108. That might help the Minister inher response.

Emily Thornberry: We have begun to discuss some ofthe specific barriers faced by single parents who arelooking for work, but we have not yet had a detaileddiscussion of what I, and I am sure most people, wouldconsider to be the most significant barrier of all: childcare.It has been said that there is no such thing as a freelunch, and in many ways it is also true that there is nosuch thing as free childcare. Getting the universal entitlementto 15 hours, which in theory is available to all parents ofchildren aged three and four, is often not quite as easyas it sounds. For a start, it usually is not free.

It is widely acknowledged that the difference betweenthe rate at which the Government subsidise childcareproviders and the actual cost of delivering care is substantial;substantial enough that charging for some services isthe only way that providers can stay afloat. Parentsknow that that can happen in a range of different ways.Some are hit by hidden charges, such as being asked topay for the cost of food or activities, while others—wehave this situation in my constituency—are told that theycannot access their free hours unless they take additionalpaid hours as well, often at considerable cost.

The Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcarecompleted an inquiry last year having heard extensiveevidence. It concluded that“parents are subsidising themselves, or other parents, in order tobenefit from the Government’s flagship early education policy.”

I ask the Department for Work and Pensions yet againto look beyond the rhetoric at the evidence. The Houseof Lords Select Committee looked at this matter andsaid that it is serious.

In some cases, parents have even been told that thefree 15 hours can be accessed only as part of a full-timeplacement. Full-time normally means 50 hours, whichaccounts for the early morning drop-off and early eveningpick-up that is generally necessary for parents whowork full time. To put in perspective the scale of thefinancial commitment that this could mean for parents,I looked at my local authority area in order to get aproper example. Childcare costs in Islington are amongthe highest in the country. A full-time place in a privatenursery will set a parent back more than £18,000 a year,and what if you have two children? Let me tell Ministersthat not all the low-income single parents from theMarket estate have that kind of money to spare. Even ifthey worked full-time for the London living wage, feesat that level would exceed their pre-tax salary.

I wonder if I can save the Minister some time byanticipating some of the arguments that she is likely torehearse in response to my concerns.

Neil Coyle: May I bring my hon. Friend back to apoint about zero-hours contracts? There is a significantconcern that some of the people affected will be forcedto take work that does not have a consistent or guaranteedincome, and that in itself acts as a barrier to being ableto access childcare.


Emily Thornberry: My hon. Friend makes an excellentand important point. The fact is that the work that islikely to be available, particularly for single parents whohave been out of the job market for some time and maywell be vulnerable and lacking in confidence and whodo not necessarily have the skills they need, is the sort ofwork that I illustrated my previous point with. It islikely to be peripheral work and zero-hours contracts. Itis unlikely to be regular, and it is likely to be at the sortof hours when there are not a lot of nurseries open.

Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab): Does myhon. Friend recognise that even the 15 hours of freechildcare, which is to be extended to 30 hours, is onlyfor three and four-year-olds? I had to go to work whenmy children were a lot younger than that. Also, thelow-welfare, high-wage economy that the Governmentare trying to achieve—and who could argue with that?—willunfortunately not include anyone who is under 25, asthey are not to be granted the living wage. So in mycircumstances—I had a child when I was 22—therewould have been no help available to me to pay forchildcare.

Emily Thornberry: My hon. Friend makes a verygood point.

I want to talk about the Government’s proposal toextend free childcare to 30 hours a week for someparents, and I will explain why I just do not buy it. Tobegin with, let me raise the most obvious problem withthe proposal. It sounds wonderful, but how on earth dothe Government intend to deliver it? How are theygoing to deliver 30 hours a week? There is the ChildcareBill—all four pages of it—and it offers no clue. I havelooked at it—it can be read in a moment. It is the mostextraordinary piece of legislation. To be quite honest, itis the Tory party manifesto on green paper. It does nothave any detail to it. It does not answer any of thequestions that people are understandably asking. Anumber of pertinent questions were put on SecondReading by Peers from all sides of the House, and theyreferred to it repeatedly as a “skeleton”. They are verypolite in the House of Lords.

That view was shared by the Delegated Powers andRegulatory Reform Committee, which expressed theconcern in its scathing report on the Bill that“it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague‘mission statement’ in clause 1(1)”,

and concluded:“The remarkable imbalance between the provision that appears

in the Bill itself and what is to be left to regulations, and thescarcity of explanation in the memorandum, has led us to questionwhether Members will be in a position to contribute meaningfullyto debates at Committee Stage and Report Stage.”

Leaving aside what that says about the Conservatives’attitude to democracy, it also says a great deal abouthow serious they are. They seek to force lone parentsback into work, on the promise that at some stage therewill be sufficient childcare for them to be able to work,but they cannot even produce a Childcare Bill thatmeans anything, or give us any details that mean anything.As I said, they are very polite in the Lords, and perhapswe should follow their example, but we do not. We saythat it is absolute nonsense. It is yet another example ofempty rhetoric. The Government are playing with people’slives, and they should be held to account for it.

Likewise, we find ourselves debating the same promisenow. Members of this Committee find ourselves illprepared to judge the consequences of the proposals inclause 15, because we simply do not know whether thepromised 30 hours of free childcare will be availablewhen people go to work. It is immediately obviouswhen we start to scratch the surface of the 30 hourscommitment that the policy is not funded to any meaningfullevel.

So we have a Bill that does not mean anything. Nowlet us look at the funding. The Government figuressuggest, and the Minister has repeated in this debate—witha straight face, for which I commend her—that extendingthe entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare a week willcost £365 million in the first year, unless I am wrong. Itseems that that is still the position. I do not know howthat figure was calculated. We have a man from theTreasury here—the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury—and I would be pleased to sit down and listen to hisexplanation of how all that childcare will be providedfor £365 million a year. [Interruption.] For the record,no explanation is forthcoming.

Interestingly, that figure differs substantially from theestimate made by the Conservative party of my party’squite similar policy proposal in 2013. When we said thatwe wanted to extend free childcare to 25 hours a weekfor working families, what did the Childcare Minister,the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), estimateour costs would be? He did not say £365 million; he didnot say £665 million; he did not say £1 billion. He saidthat it would cost £1.6 billion, yet the Minister has triedto persuade us today that producing 30 hours a week ofchildcare for so many children will cost a mere £365 milliona year through her non-existent Bill. Please excuse us ifwe are somewhat sceptical of the Government’s promisesthat they can produce that childcare.

Although we can have a laugh about it, mothers offour-year-olds on the Market estate will be threatenedwith sanctions unless they are actively looking for workand get a job, on the promise that there will be childcare.There will not be childcare that is affordable for themon the wages that they can expect given the type ofwork that is available for them. That is the reality of life,and that is why policies should be made on the basis ofevidence and not rhetoric. The truth is hard.

Neil Coyle: It is worse than empty rhetoric; it isempty legislation. We have seen the same thing in socialcare legislation. The Government committed to providingadditional support for families desperately in need ofsocial care, but when it came to implementation, therewere delays. The difference in these circumstances isthat many families will be left without sufficient supportbut with mandatory requirements and sanctions.

The Chair: Order. Let us try to stay on this Bill, onamendment 108 to clause 15.

4.15 pm

Emily Thornberry: That brings me back to the purposeof the amendment. If the Minister is as confident as sheseems that it will cost only £365 million, not £1.6 billion—even though the Childcare Bill includes no plan fordelivery and we have not heard any plan, she seems tothink that it is backed up with sufficient funding and is


entirely realistic—why not back our amendment? Weare simply saying, “Don’t push single parents into workuntil there is childcare available.” If she is so confidentthat childcare will be available, what is the problem withsupporting our amendment?

It is nonsense. In a report published last week, theInstitute for Public Policy Research criticised theGovernment and their costing, saying that it was“inexplicably low in comparison to other estimates, as well as tocurrent funding.”

The inevitable outcome, the report suggests, is:“The Government’s drastic underfunding gives rise to concerns

that the hourly rates that it will give to providers to deliver thiscare will be too low, resulting in falling quality, poorer outcomesfor children and less choice for parents as the market shrinks.”

The report also raises concerns that will be familiar toanyone who has followed debates on the issue in recentyears, about the likelihood that the Government willseek to make up for the additional strain by simplyloosening regulations. I have asked the Governmenthow they can proceed with these welfare reforms withoutexpecting families to live in cars, but I ask anotherquestion: how do they expect all those children to belooked after for such a relatively small amount ofmoney without being put in barns? Perhaps there willbe factory-farmed three-year-olds. How will theGovernment be able to look after all those youngsterson such a small amount of money? We have yet to seeany plan for how it will be done, and we simply do notbelieve the Government.

Will providers be expected to relax their ratios ofstaff to children, spreading themselves even more thinly?It has caused some alarm among providers, to say theleast, and it has caused quite a lot of alarm amongparents and the wider public, unsurprisingly, given thatwe know about the link between the quality of childcareand low ratios of staff to children. If the Governmentpress ahead with their proposals, even the best-qualifiedstaff will struggle to provide an adequate standard ofcare.

Professor Cathy Nutbrown said in evidence to theLords Committee last year that“no matter how many PhDs you have, you can only hold so manybabies.”

To put it simply, the Government are asking us inclause 15 simply to trust them. “Trust us,” they say, “Wewill provide 30 hours of free childcare. It will be availableat some point in the future.” Well, we do not trust theGovernment on that. The Childcare Bill is not a crediblepiece of legislation, and the trust that we have beenasked to place in the Government has not been earned.Frankly, they might as well have brought a Bill promisinga land full of milk and honey, for all the credibility thatthe Childcare Bill has.

If I am wrong—I hope that I am—and the Minister isright, and if 30 hours childcare is about to be availablefree for all working parents; if everything is fine, and itis good-quality childcare that is available in the hourswhen people can work, then she should support ouramendment. We have been discussing safeguards toprevent conditionality from being applied to parents ininappropriate circumstances, and amendment 108 providesa way to do so that is straightforward and clear. Itprovides simply that single parents will not be forced tolook for work in the absence of affordable and appropriate

childcare. If she is so confident, she should back up herconfidence by supporting our amendment. There is nogood reason to oppose it.

As I have outlined, there are many doubts about thepromises that have been made. I understand that theMinister is leading the childcare taskforce herself, soshe should be more confident than anyone else, and sheshould be able to say in this debate, “You’re right, EmilyThornberry. I’m going to show you just how confident Iam. I’m going to instruct my Back Benchers to supportthe Labour amendment.”Not supporting the amendmentwill show that not even the Minister believes in herchildcare policy.

Priti Patel: We have been very clear that to supportour full employment ambition, the Government arecommitted to helping working families by reducing thecost of childcare and making it easier for parents toreturn to work and to work more hours while knowing,importantly, that their children will be well cared for.That is why we have introduced the Childcare Bill,which will increase the level of free childcare from 15 to30 hours for all working parents of three and four-year-olds.That will be available in some areas as early as September2016, with further roll-out from September 2017. Clearly,however, that is only one element of a comprehensivepackage of childcare support available to parents upand down the country.

The existing offer provides 15 hours of early yearseducation for all three and four-year olds and fordisadvantaged two-year-olds. That is in addition to theother Government support for childcare, including, asthe hon. Lady mentioned, the universal credit childcareelement, which will cover 85% of eligible childcare costsfrom April next year. Let me emphasise again to theCommittee that no matter how few hours parents work,they will have their costs covered—that is 85%.

Emily Thornberry rose—

Priti Patel: I will not give way. That is expected tohelp about 500,000 additional families at a cost of£350 million a year—that cost is specific to the universalcredit childcare element.

On top of that, parents will have the option to claimtax-free childcare, which will help up to 1.8 millionfamilies, who will be able to benefit by up to £2,000 perchild per year, or £4,000 for disabled children. We havealso secured additional funding to allow jobcentre workcoaches to address barriers to employment and to supportmoves into work. The extra funding may be used in avariety of ways to pay for travel and childcare, to enableparents, such as lone parents, to undertake training,attend interviews or start work.

We recognise that we have to continue to do more,but—just to put this on the record—this Governmenthas a proud record on childcare provision, in particularin the previous Parliament, when we increased the start-upgrants to increase childcare supply in the marketplace.That totalled up to £2 million available to people to setup new childcare businesses. We now have about 32,000good or outstanding childcare minders who have beensupported and are now eligible through early educationfunding. We have made it simpler and easier for schoolsand childcare providers to work together to increase theamount of childcare available on school sites. Last week,


[Priti Patel]

we made the announcement of wraparound childcare.We have also legislated for the creation of childminderagencies, which will improve the support available forchildminders and parents. We have simplified the frameworkso that nurseries may expand more easily.

On top of that, the Government are spending inexcess of £5 billion in the childcare market, which isimportant first to increase the sufficiency of supply, andsecondly to focus on quality. The quality continues toimprove, with 85% of providers declared good oroutstanding by Ofsted, which compares with 70% in2010. The qualifications of early-years staff continuedto improve in 2014. The National Day Nurseries Associationreported that 88% of settings that it surveyed employeda graduate, up from 80%, and that 87% of staff hadgood A-level equivalent qualifications. Now we havethe early-years foundation stage profile results for 2013-14,which show an 8 percentage point increase in the numberof children reaching a good level of development by theage of five. That also applies to children from disadvantagedbackgrounds.

It is fair to say, therefore, that we are not embarrassedat all. It is pretty sad to hear the Opposition, althoughthey are entitled to their views, portray the Governmentas not doing enough on childcare and not supportingworking families on childcare—

Neil Coyle rose—

Priti Patel: I will not give way. The Opposition arecompletely wrong. The hon. Member for Islington Southand Finsbury mentioned the childcare taskforce, whichhas been set up by the Prime Minister across theDepartment for Work and Pensions and the Departmentfor Education. We are working with a wide variety ofstakeholders, including childcare providers and the thirdsector—they are members of the taskforce. The ChildcareBill places a statutory duty on local authorities topublish information on childcare and other servicesavailable to parents locally, ensuring transparency forparents.Importantly, funding was mentioned. Of course, fundingcontinues to be one of the areas where more work istaking place in Government. A funding consultation istaking place, led by the Department for Education. Ofcourse, we are working with the DFE. We made greatprogress in the last Parliament to increase parentalemployment, particularly with lone parents. The numberof children in workless households has decreased.

Obviously, there is more we can do. We will continueto ensure that we provide affordable and appropriatechildcare in the right settings, and that the availability isthere. The Government firmly believe that we need todo more rather than less to support parents with youngchildren to prepare for work. Childcare is one of thosevital strands. Ultimately, it helps to improve children’slife chances as well. The clauses, together with oursubstantial investment in childcare, support that ambition.That is why I urge hon. Members to withdraw theamendment.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for her response.If I had been allowed to intervene, I would have askedher whether she could help us on a specific point, whichis probably important. The commitment is to childcare

once parents are working, but for many parents, particularlyif we are talking about parents of a very young child, tobe able to find work, it may well be that children willneed to have childcare—from the 20 hours, or whateverthe commitment is—so that their parents can apply forjobs, go to interviews, fill in CVs and do voluntary workto prepare for work. Will there be any childcare availablefor parents who are looking for work, particularly whentheir children are young? If she is not able to answer metoday, could she write to me about that, because I amnot clear from her earlier answer whether she coveredthat matter or not?

Neil Coyle: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way,particularly in light of the Minister’s refusal to give wayto her. That was a shame, because some of the pointsthat the Minister made are very welcome. What wasfrustrating was that there was no figure for the numberof children. If £365 million is being provided, it wouldbe helpful if the Government could indicate how manychildren that is expected to support.

Emily Thornberry: There might be another question.Although the Minister has raised tax-free childcare, itprobably needs to be pointed out at some stage—perhapsI might point it out now—that tax-free childcare isavailable only for people not claiming tax credits. It isnot of any benefit to people on low incomes.

In light of the response that the Government havegiven us, we will not withdraw the amendment, and Iwish to put it to a vote.








The Chair: Colleagues, we now come to a little bit ofa vote-fest. I have a note that amendments 140, 63, 131,132 and 133 can now be put in that order. Is anyoneaware of any other amendments that they are lookingto press to a Division?

Neil Coyle rose—

The Chair: You cannot speak again, I am afraid; justmove it formally.

Amendment proposed: 140, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, atend insert—

“(d) in section 22(1) after “section” insert “, except if theclaimant is the responsible carer of a disabled childaged 3 or 4.


(1B) The Secretary of State must lay regulations determiningwhat a disabled child is for the purpose of this section and mayinclude, but will not be limited to a child—

(a) in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan,(b) in receipt of a Statement of Special Educational

Needs,(c) identified by their local authority as having special

educational needs,(d) with child in need status,(e) meeting the definition of disabled under the Equality

Act 2010.”—(Neil Coyle.)To exempt a responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4 from allwork-related requirements.








4.30 pmAmendment proposed: 63, in clause 15, page 14,

line 40, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—“(a) in regulation 91 (claimants subject to work-focused

interview requirement only), for the word “3”substitute“5 or when the child starts primary school”;

(b) in regulation 91A (claimants subject to work preparationrequirement) for the words “3 or 4” substitute “whohas not yet started primary school”;”—(Hannah Bardell.)

This amendment, taken together with amendment 62, would meanclaimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers are notsubject to work focused interviews or work preparation requirementsuntil their child starts school. From when a child starts school, relevantclaimants would be required to follow all work requirements.








Amendment proposed: 131, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, atend insert—“(3) Claimants subject to new requirements as a result of themeasures contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this clause must, ata time no later than three months before subsections (1) and (2) comeinto force, receive written notification of the lone parent flexibilitiesissued as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.” —(Emily Thornberry.)

To provide that anyone who becomes subject to new work-relatedrequirements as a result of the measures in clause 15 must be providedwith written notification of the lone parent flexibilities which the DWPissues as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.







Question accordingly negatived.Amendment proposed: 132, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, at

end insert—‘(3) The Secretary of State must, at time no later than three

months before subsections (1) and (2) come into force, issueguidance on the lone parent flexibilities to Jobcentre Plusmanagers, such guidance must include provision on the trainingof Jobcentre Plus staff in advance of the new work-relatedrequirements coming into force.”—(Emily Thornberry.)To require the Secretary of State to issue up to date written guidance toJobcentre Plus managers on the lone parent flexibilities, includingprovisions on the training of Jobcentre Plus staff.








Amendment proposed: 133, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, atend insert—

‘(3) The Secretary of State may not impose a work searchrequirement on any claimant in receipt of Universal Credit, whois a lone parent, in circumstances which include but are notlimited to the following—


(a) the claimant‘s adviser determines that there is aninadequate number of suitable employment vacancieswithin reasonable daily travelling distance of theclaimant‘s home;

(b) the claimant is responsible for the care of a childduring that child‘s school holidays, and it is notreasonable to expect the claimant to make alternativearrangements;

(c) the claimant is responsible for the care of a child duringany period in which that child is excluded from school,or is otherwise not receiving education pursuant toarrangements made by a local education authority,and it is not reasonable to expect the claimant tomake alternative arrangements;

(d) any child care expenses which would be necessarilyincurred by the claimant as a result of carrying outthe requirement imposed would represent anunreasonably high proportion of the income the claimantcould expect to receive while carrying out the requirementin question;

(e) the claimant is enrolled on a course of study leading toa vocational qualification, or is otherwise undertakingengaged in vocational training;

(f) the claimant has become a lone parent within the lastsix months;

(g) any other circumstances in which the claimant‘s advisermay consider the imposition of a work search requirementto be unreasonable in light of that claimant‘s individualcircumstances.”—(Emily Thornberry.)

To provide a statutory basis for flexibility to be applied in imposingwork search requirements on lone parents in receipt of Universal Credit.


Division No. 42]





Question accordingly negatived.Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the

Bill.


AYESAtkins, VictoriaHeaton-Jones, PeterHinds, DamianMilling, AmandaOpperman, Guy




Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

LOANS FOR MORTGAGE INTEREST

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Workand Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara): I beg to moveamendment 110, in clause 16, page 15, line 4, leave out“pay mortgage interest in relation to property” andinsert—“make owner-occupier payments in respect of accommodation”This amendment replaces the description of the payments for whichloans may be made with a reference to “owner-occupier payments”relating to the accommodation that persons occupy as their homes. Theterm will be defined in regulations (see amendment 116). This amendmentalso ensures that there is flexibility to provide support as regards allpossible dwellings.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 111 to 128.

Mr Vara: It is a pleasure to serve under yourchairmanship, Mr Streeter. For the sake of good order,may I refer colleagues to the Register of Members’Financial Interests to the extent that anything thereinapplies and ought to be declared?

I welcome the new members to the Committee and Iwish well those who served on it before, particularly theright hon. Member for East Ham, who spoke eloquentlyin his contributions here and will be sorely missed onthe Front Bench of the Labour party.

The clauses will change the way in which claimantswith outstanding mortgages receive help from income-related benefits. I will be absolutely clear at the outset.The Government remain committed to helping owner-occupiers in times of need to avoid the risk of repossession.However, we believe it is wrong that taxpayers who areunable to afford to buy a home of their own aresubsidising claimants who own their own homes. Taxpayerssupport a significant asset from which many homeownersare able to profit. It is our intention that help towardsmortgage interest payments should be taken in the formof an interest-bearing loan that will be recovered fromavailable equity once the property is sold. In that way,we will be able to provide a better deal for the taxpayerwhile ensuring that claimants receive the protectionfrom repossession that they currently enjoy.

Moreover, the amendments will ensure that we donot exclude claimants who have non-standard financingarrangements from the offer of a loan, for examplewhere a person has entered into what are referred to asalternative financial arrangements for purchasing theirproperty rather than a traditional mortgage.

Emily Thornberry: I am listening with care to theMinister because the change is radical compared withhow things were done until now. I want to be clearabout this. He has talked about the importance ofprotection from repossession, but can he confirm thatthe clause extends the period during which there is noassistance available when someone becomes unemployedfrom 13 to 39 weeks? Would it not make it more likelythat homes will be repossessed if mortgage companiesget no money at all for 39 weeks?


Mr Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving methe opportunity to make that point. She will be awarethat, before the introduction of 13 weeks in 2009, theperiod was 39 weeks. There was a specific reason why itwas reduced by the then Government to 13 weeks: itwas the height of the recession. It was very difficult toget jobs and it was felt necessary to make that adjustment.The economic climate now is a lot different from what itwas in 2009. When there are record levels of employment—unemployment is very low—and when we have theprospect of an economy that is recovering, we feel thetime period should be brought back to what it waspreviously. There was no concern when there was a39-week period when there were better economiccircumstances. With the economy picking up, we feelthat, as 39 weeks was fine in the past under a LabourGovernment, there is no reason why it should notcontinue under a Conservative Government.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister says that he feels39 weeks will be fine because it was fine under a LabourGovernment before the recession, but is the change topolicy based on any evidence? Can the Government pointus to any impact assessment or other information thatwill reassure us that homelessness will not be increased?

Mr Vara: There is an impact assessment on theGovernment website and the hon. Lady is welcome toview it. She talks about evidence and I would havethought that record levels of employment for youth,women and the country as a whole is pretty strongevidence.

Neil Coyle: It is interesting that the Minister hasabsolute confidence in economic stability, but it is notshared by everyone. House prices are rising and fallingat different rates, and different job opportunities areavailable, in different parts of the country. May I be thefirst to offer the Minister the moniker of Minister forrepossessions?

Mr Vara: Sorry, I missed the hon. Gentleman’s lastpoint. He was obviously trying to be witty and clever,but I am afraid that it was far too witty for this time ofday.

Neil Coyle: It has been a long day. My point is thatthe Minister will become known as the Minister forrepossessions as a result of a retrograde step. Labourchanged that policy in government to ensure that, havingcontributed to benefits through national insurance, peoplehad support if and when they needed it. The Governmentare taking that support away and the Minister willbecome known as the Minister for repossessions.

Mr Vara: May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman,who is new to the House of Commons, that, if hewishes to survive, he will have to get used to being calleda lot of things?

We intend to ensure that, through the regulations, wecover financial arrangements alternative to traditionalmortgages. The amendments will also ensure that claimantswho live in non-traditional homes, such as houseboatsor caravans, will also be offered a loan. It is importantthat support is available to protect the homes of allindividuals, regardless of the type of accommodationthey occupy. The amendments ensure that the technical

detail about calculating the amount of a person’s liabilitiesto make owner-occupier payments, and the maximumamount of those liabilities that can be met with a loan,will be set out in regulations.

The amendments ensure that regulations made underclause 16 requiring security for a loan may make provisionfor situations where there are alternative financialarrangements for a home, and ensure that the securitycan be taken in respect of a legal or beneficial interest inthe person’s home.

Clause 17 allows for the detailed framework withinwhich loans may be made to be put in place by regulations.That will allow for the tactical operation of support formortgage-interest loans, which will provide fairnessfor taxpayers along with protection from repossessionfor claimants. It will also continue the current administrativearrangements that mean that payments of support formortgage interest go directly to the mortgage lender.

The amendments to clause 17 are consequential tothe amendments to clause 16. They replace the descriptionof the payments for which loans may be made with areference to owner-occupier payments, which will bedefined in regulations. They will ensure that the loanscheme will be available to eligible claimants who haveacquired their home through alternative financearrangements rather than through a traditional mortgage.

Amendment 120 seeks to clarify what requirements aperson will have to meet before receiving a loan. Itensures that regulations under the clause may makeprovision about entering into agreements with personsreceiving loans. The Secretary of State will be able tospecify terms in the agreement that he thinks fit, subjectto any terms set out in the regulations. That will ensurethat the regulations do not have to include every termthat is needed in the loan agreement.

4.45 pmAmendment 128 is a straightforward, consequential

amendment to omit the reference to mortgage paymentsin section 3A(5)(a) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002,which is about the meaning of payments in respect ofaccommodation. It mirrors the amendment to section11 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 in respect of anaward of universal credit. The amendment is necessarybecause a person in receipt of pension credit will nolonger receive an amount in respect of their liability tomake mortgage interest payments. Instead, clause 16(1)of the Bill contains provision to enable support formortgage interest to be paid in the form of a loan.

The impact assessment, which was mentioned earlier,is on the Parliament website and was published on20 July.

Emily Thornberry: I have read the impact assessment.

Mr Vara: Why did you ask whether there was one inthe first place?

The Chair: Order.

Emily Thornberry: That is why I am trying to clearthis up. I was asking whether the impact assessmentcontains anything in particular on the effect of thechanges in this clause, particularly with regard to extendingthe time that will be available. People will have to wait39 weeks before they get any assistance with their


[Emily Thornberry]

mortgage. Will that increase the amount of homelessness?That is an important piece of evidence that is sadlylacking when the Government are making proposals toextend the time period.

Although the Minister talks with great glee about fullemployment and this and that, he is changing thelegislation so that, instead of people being given assistanceto pay the interest on their mortgage, which has alwaysbeen the system—the assistance pays not for the equityin a property but merely for the interest payments inorder to keep people safe, warm and secure in a home—people will have to take out a loan against that property.Furthermore, the Government are changing the legislationso that people have to wait for an extraordinary, scaryperiod of 39 weeks, during which they have to keep offthose who actually own the property and who havemortgaged it to them. A person who has lost their jobwill suddenly have to fight off those who want torepossess the property.

In the real world, we all know that there may be agrace period, but 39 weeks is a very long grace period.My concern is that it will increase the amount ofhomelessness. Wrapping that together with theGovernment’s other housing policies, which are alsohaving an adverse effect on homelessness, will increasethe amount of homelessness. That is why I asked whetherthe impact assessment is helpful to the Government inreassuring all of us that the measure will not increasethe amount of homelessness.

On the face of it, making a mortgage company wait39 weeks will increase the number of repossessions.Frankly, if a mortgage company hears that someonehas lost their job—the person might be in their late50s—it might make an assessment and decide that thatperson is unlikely to get another job. There may beareas of Buckinghamshire, London and the home countieswhere it is relatively easy to get a job, but there are otherareas across the country where, frankly, there are nojobs. The tragedy of Redcar, of course, is that whenpeople lose their job, the chances of their being able toget another are practically nil. They certainly will not beable to get a job at a level that will help them to continuepaying their mortgage.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend has hit the nail onthe head. In fact, the Money Advice Trust has madeexactly the same point and has expressed its considerableconcern about extending the period from 13 weeks to39 weeks. The experience of all lenders and adviceagencies is that early intervention is the key to resolving—

Mr Vara rose—

The Chair: Order. The hon. Member for IslingtonSouth and Finsbury has tabled an amendment that wewill consider later in our proceedings on this very issue.She may not necessarily want to emphasise the point atthis stage. The intervention has gone on long enoughthat she may want to respond to her own colleague andthen perhaps give way to the Minister.

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Iappreciate that I sound like a cracked record, but it isabout evidence, evidence, evidence. What is the evidencethat this change will help us? What is the evidence that

this will not increase the number of repossessions? Giveus evidence and we would be interested, glad and reassuredto hear it.

On the face of it, if someone does not pay back anymortgage for 39 weeks, their mortgage company willkick them out. A steelworker in Redcar might have agood mortgage, a family home and a good family wageone week, but the next week, they could be maderedundant and no longer be able to pay their mortgage.The Government will not give them any assistance for39 weeks. They would have no job and no prospects,and things could suddenly turn very nasty and difficult.Thirty nine weeks is a long period. They might be ableto get a zero-hours contract. All I can say to that is:good luck with paying off a mortgage on a zero-hourscontract.

As we said at the beginning of these proceedings,although the Government want to use the terms ofclause 1 to be able to get up and brag about fullemployment or the progress towards that, we know thatthe definition of employment seems to be any work atall. The definition of employment is not the living wage,a wage that a family can live on or a wage that peoplecan use to pay their mortgage..

Mr Vara: I would make two brief comments. TheCouncil of Mortgage Lenders has not said that the39-week wait will drive repossessions. That is an eminentlyrespected organisation, and it would have said if it feltthat was the case. May I gently remind the hon. Ladythat though she was not an MP at the time, the LabourGovernment from 1997 to 2009 maintained a 39-weekwaiting period? It seems ironic that what was suitablefor a Labour Government for so many years is now feltto be inappropriate for this Government, particularlywhen our economic record is on the up and far betterthan it was under the previous Government.

Emily Thornberry: I was an MP in 2005, and thedifference was that there was real investment going on,homes were being built and the economy was workingproperly as opposed to fumbling along as it currently isand seemingly being fuelled entirely by rhetoric. It is allvery well for the Minister to assert until he is blue in theface that everything is well, everyone is working, everyoneis getting a great wage and there are no problems, butthat is not the reality of people’s lives.

Mr Vara rose—

The Chair: Order. The hon. Lady is giving way onGovernment amendment 110.

Mr Vara: That is very helpful. As the Governmentamendment deals with houses, what I am about to saywill be very relevant, particularly given what the hon.Lady said. She spoke about the huge amount of housebuilding under the Labour Government when she was aLabour Member. May I remind her that the past fiveyears have seen more affordable housing built than inthe 13 years of the Labour Administration?

Emily Thornberry: No. I do not agree. I am gratefulfor the Minister’s comments about the Council of MortgageLenders and its statement. I counter him with a statementfrom the Money Advice Trust:

“We strongly support the tabled Amendment 19, which wouldrequire that the waiting period before an application for a loan formortgage interest can be made is retained at 13 weeks, instead of


the proposed 39. Lenders and advice agencies alike know fromexperience that early intervention is the key to resolving financialdifficulty. The proposed 39 weeks will mean that claimants will bewell over six months in arrears with their mortgage by the timeSMI starts to be paid—by which time it will be significantly moredifficult for them to resolve their financial situation.”

There are arguments both ways.It is important that we look at what will happen. The

Government have said a great deal about pensioners,about how they will look after pensions, about the triplelock and about this Government being friendly topensioners. Is not there a problem that this measure willaffect pensioners as much as it will affect anyone else?The particular difficulty with pensioners is that if theyare expected to take out a loan against their propertyinstead of getting relief on the interest, increasinglythey will lose ownership of that property. As pensionersit will be even more difficult for them to work. In fact,the idea of a pensioner is that they do not work. Thepolicy will increasingly eat away at an asset that cannotbe expanded.

Is that not an asset that, as a matter of social policy,the Government expect pensioners to use in many otherways? I will not get into a detailed debate about the cutsin social care. Let us just say that I think there have beencuts in social care. I am sure that the Minister thinksthat social care is marvellous so let us leave it at that.Are not pensioners expected to be paying for theirlong-term care out of the asset that is their home?

Many pensioners may have been tempted by theGovernment’s deregulation of access to pension pots.Memorably, the previous Pensions Minister said that hewould be intensely relaxed if people were to take theirmoney out and spend it on a Bugatti or whatever it was.Of course, deregulation and the access to pension potsmeans that people will have access to their pensionfunds, which they will be able to spend in advance oftheir pension. They will be expected to use their housesto pay for social care and if they need assistance withpaying off their mortgage, that mortgage will not beavailable for them in any other way; they will be expectedcontinually to take out more of a loan on the equity ofthe property.

It seems that pensioners are getting it from everyangle, which is very far from the rhetoric we heard at theparty conference about how much the Tory party is afriend of pensioners. It is interesting that this is thefirst—I suspect it will not be the last—occasion inwhich the Government are changing the game. TheGovernment say they want to help people make theright choices. Pensioners, of all people, may be unableto make choices. They are coming towards the end oftheir lives and their options are limited. They are expectedto take yet another charge on the one asset of value thatthey have—to continually take out a loan on theirproperty, which their children may be expecting to haveto help pay off their student loans or to set up in life.

We have heard that the average age for people to setup their own home now is in their 30s. Quite often, theyrely on their parents to be able to help. The rules arebeing changed for pensioners. This is blow No.1; we will

see how many other blows there are for pensioners inthe future. We will certainly ensure that pensioners hearthe truth, which is that, despite the rhetoric, this Toryparty which claims to be the friend of pensioners, is not.This is the first step in undermining all the promises theparty made in its manifesto and at the last generalelection.

Mr Vara: I simply make two responses. On pensioners,the hon. Lady conveniently overlooks that it is often thecase that the asset is increasing in value. She alsooverlooks that the loan will eventually be paid when thehouse is sold. It is therefore a question of balance, andwe have to ask whether it is fair that those who do notown a property of their own are through their taxeshelping to pay others who own an asset that is increasingin value.

As for healthcare, I simply say to the hon. Lady thatfor many of those securing help in healthcare there isunlikely to be an overlap in terms of the equity in theirproperty, as many of them are mortgage-free and sometimeshave a second income or another income. They wouldnot probably qualify for SMI in the first place.

Amendment 110 agreed to.Amendments made: 111, in clause 16, page 15, line 13,

leave out“amounts secured by a mortgage”

and insert “liabilities”.This amendment and amendments 112, 113, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125and 126 are consequential on amendment 110 which replaces thereference to mortgage interest payments with a reference toowner-occupier payments.

Amendment 112, in clause 16, page 15, line 16, leaveout“the mortgage relates to amounts used”

and insert“a person’s liability to make owner-occupier payments was incurred”.

Amendment 113, in clause 16, page 15, line 18, leaveout from “about” to “in” in line 19 and insert “—

(a) determining or calculating the amount of a person’sliabilities;

(b) the maximum amount of a person’s liabilities”.

Amendment 114, in clause 16, page 15, line 24, aftersecond “a” insert “mortgage of or”.This amendment ensures that regulations under clause 16 aboutrequiring security for a loan may make provision for situations wherethere is no pre-existing mortgage over the person’s home.

Amendment 115, in clause 16, page 15, line 24, at endinsert“a legal or beneficial interest in”.—(Mr Vara.)

This amendment makes clear that regulations under clause 16 aboutrequiring security for a loan may make provision for security to betaken in respect of a legal or a beneficial interest in the person’s home.

Ordered, That further consideration be nowadjourned.—(Guy Opperman.)

5.1 pmAdjourned till Thursday 13 October at half-past

Eleven o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseWRW 44 Interlink Foundation, Agudas Israel of Great

Britain and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations

WRW 45 End Child Poverty Coalition

WRW 46 Chartered Institute of Housing

WRW 47 Gipton Supported Independent Living(GIPSIL)

WRW 48 Chwarae Teg

WRW 49 Oxfam

WRW 50 Remploy

WRW 51 Money Advice Trust

WRW 52 PCS Union

WRW 53 The Almshouse AssociationWRW 54 EquityWRW 55 RadianWRW 56 Council of Mortgage LendersWRW 57 Harry WarnerWRW 58 Trades Union CongressWRW 59 Emma HauxwellWRW 60 Capsticks LLPWRW 61 Kinship Care AllianceWRW 62 Wigan Council, and Wigan and Leigh HomesWRW 63 Supplementary evidence from Cllr Gary

Porter CBE, Chair, Local Government AssociationWRW 64 Parkinson’s UK


parliamentary debates - publications.parliament.uk€¦ · † vara, mr shailesh (parliamentary...

Documents