Sir Stephen Timms
MP for East Ham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he would like to send me details of that particular case, I will happily look into it. On the subject of people with hearing impairments, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and I will be meeting the British Sign Language Advisory Board this afternoon.”
“Better outcomes require early identification and support for girls and young women with special educational needs, including dyslexia. That is the aim of the SEND reforms and the development of national inclusion standards.”
“Autistic people and people with ADHD have been struggling to get the right support at the right time. Recommendations from Professor Karen Guldberg’s neurodivergence task and finish group directly informed the SEND reforms that were published earlier this year.”
“The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to make reasonable adjustments, so that disabled people are not put at a disadvantage by accessibility challenges.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This benefit is there to contribute to the additional costs of disability. Too often, what has happened—my hon.”
“I think we can take the hon. Member’s question as a tacit recognition that in 14 years the previous Government should have done something to fix these problems. The steering group is clear that the provision of cash to meet the additional costs of disability is vital.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,185 lines we hold for Sir Stephen Timms, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 104.
“I have raised before in the House the predicament of residents of Barrier Point, in my constituency, whose insurance premiums have risen sixfold. The Secretary of State told me in January that such insurers were “squarely in our gun sights”. —[ Official Report , 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 55.] Can the Minister offer any prospect of imminent relief to my constituents, some of whom face a demand of an additional £6,000 this year?”
“I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; he is making some very important points. Does he agree that part of the success of the new towns was around the provision of social housing and that there needs to be a substantial programme of that within the programme that he is setting out to the House this evening?”
“Citizens Advice estimates that 329,000 parents have had NRPF, many for 10 years, which is most of somebody’s childhood, whereas 40% have been in the UK for more than five years and 10%, like the family I told the then Prime Minister about, have been here for more than a decade. Families with no recourse to public funds can make a change of circumstances application for exemption from NRPF if they are destitute or heading for destitution. Last year, 3,200 families applied and 60% were successful. I welcome regular publication of the data about that. Recent court decisions have required immigration rule changes to allow disability and child welfare to be considered, but those decisions do not yet seem to have been reflected in change of circumstances decisions. A lot of families do not know about the change in circumstances process.”
“Parliamentary questions have shown, however, that the Home Office cannot even tell us how many people it gave leave to remain last year with the NRPF condition attached, apparently because of the inadequacy of its computer systems. Last November, I asked in written question 93420 when the new Atlas case working system would tell us the number of applicants who have no recourse to public funds attached to their leave to remain. The answer came back that, “remaining areas will complete their transition to Atlas in 2023, after which time it will be possible to explore what further information can be produced using the new system.” I wonder whether the Minister can update us when he winds up. By when does he now think the Home Office will at least know how many people it imposes NRPF on each year?”
“They renew their leave every two and a half years, paying at least £2,608 per adult in visa fees each time plus additional fees for their children. No recourse to public funds applies throughout. The Home Office has been taking 11 months, on average, to process these re-applications, so for months people cannot prove their status. Thousands who are still permitted to work while awaiting the determination have wrongly lost their jobs as a result. After 10 years, they can apply for indefinite leave and, when they secure that, NRPF no longer applies. The Home Office does not know how many people in the UK have no recourse to public funds. That, I think, is understandable. Once people are given leave to remain, the Home Office does not know who departs.”
“He did not find out how many were in that position, because the Home Office does not know. No recourse to public funds is a condition imposed on people with temporary visas. The current version dates from 2012, and bars access to social security benefits. According to the House of Commons Library, 1.6 million people have leave to remain with no recourse to public funds. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University estimates that the total includes 225,000 children. Typically, families are on the so-called 10-year track to indefinite leave, like the family that I mentioned to the Prime Minister. That family were in the UK on student visas for several years, but after their two children were born, they started on the 10-year track.”
“Why aren’t they eligible for universal credit, employment and support allowance or any of the other benefits”. I said that it was because of no recourse to public funds. They had been here for years, but for 10 years, NRPF meant no help at all. The Prime Minister said: “I am going to have to come back to you on that, Stephen. Clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another…I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help. ” He was right to say that “people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another”. Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister’s opinion was not his Government’s policy.”
“They had to turn to food banks, as a huge number did in my constituency, where Bonny Downs Community Association, Newham Community Project and others did an amazing job. Before the pandemic, if people with no recourse to public funds lost their job they just got another one, but the pandemic made that impossible. The complete absence of help came as a shock to, for one, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). At the Liaison Committee in May 2020, two months into lockdown, I told him about a hard-working, law-abiding family in my constituency, including two British-born children, who were destitute because the father had lost his income. The transcript of the Committee meeting records the following: “Hang on, Stephen.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place, and I thank the Members on both sides of the House who supported the application. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests records my support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migrant Policy project. I also thank Praxis, Citizens UK, and the Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex and London for helping me to prepare for the debate. During the pandemic, hard-working, law-abiding families, working legally in the UK but subject to no recourse to public funds, were especially hard hit. Their wages stopped because their jobs stopped, and NRPF also prevented them from claiming benefits.”
“Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They were proposed unanimously by a Select Committee with a Conservative majority and they would support thousands of families during the biggest fall in living standards on record.”
“We cannot justify having this large group in the labour market at such a massive disadvantage compared with everyone else. I welcome the extension of care for disadvantaged two-year-olds to NRPF families. Access for those families to free school meals is now permanent as well, which I am pleased about. Five years is long enough for a family to contribute into our welfare state before receiving from it. After half a decade, a family with British-born children is here for good. Will the Minister commit to considering extending child benefit to all British children, irrespective of their parents’ status, and allowing parents access to public funds after five years? Those are not radical changes. They are affordable, sensible reforms that will be advocated in an op-ed in The Times tomorrow that is co-authored by me and the hon.”
“She had no choice but to stay in an abusive relationship for four years, as NRPF meant she had no way out. Praxis has surveyed families with no recourse to public funds over the past month: two thirds are struggling to afford food; 59% have been forced into debt to pay for essentials, about three times the proportion of the population as a whole; and half are relying on charities and food banks for basic needs, compared with 3% of the population as a whole. The Chancellor announced welcome improvements in the Budget, as recommended by the Select Committee, to support people who are claiming universal credit with their childcare costs. That support is not available to working families with no recourse to public funds who are faced with unaffordable childcare, like everybody else.”
“St Mungo’s points out that rising food, energy and rent costs are increasing rough sleeping. More NRPF families will be on the street, and others will be stuck in insecure, overcrowded housing with long-term damaging impacts on children who will be here forever. One parent told the Select Committee: “My 5-year-old kept asking, ‘Mum, why are other children entitled and I am not?’ I struggled to answer.” We should not be doing that to children who will spend their life in this country. Maryam, a 23-year-old domestic violence survivor with two daughters, was referred to the Kurdish and Middle Eastern Women’s Organisation in north London by children’s social services. She had no recourse to public funds, so she was financially dependent on her husband.”
“At last, paragraph 45 of the Government guidance on the household support fund states that, from 1 April 2023: “Authorities can provide a basic safety net support to an individual, regardless of their immigration status, if there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution, for example if…they have serious health problems; there is a risk to a child’s wellbeing… Authorities must use their judgement to decide what legal powers and funding can be used to support individuals who are ineligible for public funds”. The Government guidance remains somewhat unclear, but the first point is welcome and overdue. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), Crisis reports that 6% of the people it supported last year had NRPF.”
“No assessment has been made of the impact on children in low-income families with no recourse to public funds of the non-availability of the support being provided to other families in identical situations, but not much imagination is needed to work that out. The household support fund is paid out through local authorities. When it was introduced, councils did not know whether they were allowed to support people with no recourse to public funds. The Government advice was that councils should take their own legal advice on whether or not they are allowed to use the household support fund for that purpose.”
“The Select Committee took evidence from parents with no recourse to public funds, and a Conservative colleague on the Committee rightly described their evidence as “harrowing.” Having no recourse to public funds leaves families in desperate situations. Praxis, which supports families in my constituency, calculates that a two-parent, two-child family with both parents working and earning the national living wage are entitled to just over £11,000 of support this financial year, including cost of living support, universal credit and child benefit. If the same family had no recourse to public funds, they would be entitled to £195—the saving from the energy price guarantee.”
“The pandemic highlighted the perilous situation of people with no recourse to public funds, and the latest Trussell Trust data show that food bank demand is sharply up again. In the cost of living crisis, families with no recourse to public funds are being clobbered once more, which is the trigger for this debate. Low-income families with no recourse to public funds are ineligible for cost of living support because they are ineligible for the benefits that passport people to that support. They are not eligible for the £900 cost of living payment this year or the £600 cost of living payment last year, for the £300 pensioner payment, for the £150 disability payment or for the warm home discount. Battling through the current crisis without the support everyone else receives is extraordinarily hard.”
“The second was that where the children are British citizens, as is often the case, child benefit should be paid in relation to those children even when the parents have no recourse to public funds. When families have been here for five years, or when children are already British citizens, they are here for good. We should be supporting children to fulfil their potential future contribution to our society. We will all lose out by denying them that support. It makes no sense to impose destitution on the families of children who will be in Britain for the rest of their life. The Government rejected those modest cross-party recommendations, and I hope the Minister will think again. The current policy is contrary to the national interest.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I believe that his local council is no longer Green party controlled. He is absolutely right. The change of circumstances process is cumbersome and difficult. With specialist help from an organisation such as the Unity Project or Praxis, people are likely to succeed, but lots of families do not know those organisations and cannot access the help. If someone is in Brighton, they cannot access a support organisation in Islington. It is very troubling that many families are missing out because applying is so hard. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions unanimously recommended two specific changes. The first was that no family with children should have the condition for longer than five years, recognising that for many it is 10 years at the moment.”
“It cannot be right for families in otherwise identical circumstances doing the same jobs to be £11,000 a year worse off even after they have been here for years because of the impact of the NRPF condition. It is, as others have said, a straightforward question of fairness. I am encouraged by the tone of what the Minister said and I hope that we will see some significant changes in this area in the coming months. It would be in everybody’s interests and in the national interest for that to happen. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds.”
“I am grateful to everyone who has supported the debate and contributed to it, including those who have delayed their return to Scotland to do so. I am also grateful for the tone of the Minister’s response. I welcome the point that he made at the end about giving us information about when, in the next few months, the data will be available. Let me underline the two key recommendations from the Work and Pensions Committee, reflecting the reality that children in families who have been here for five years and children who are already British citizens are here for good. First, families with children should automatically be exempted from NRPF after, at most, five years. Secondly, where the children are British citizens, child benefit should be payable, notwithstanding their parents having no recourse to public funds.”
“At Question Time last week, in column 725, the Prime Minister referred to “record numbers of people in work”. —[ Official Report , 26 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 725.] In fact, as he knows, the number of people in work at the moment is still less than it was just before the pandemic—122,792 less, according to the latest official figures. Will he reassure the House that he is not slipping into the bad ways of his predecessor but one, and will he properly correct the incorrect statement that he made last week?”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. In February I visited Turkana county in Kenya with the Tearfund charity and I saw the devastating consequences of four years of no rain at all. To tackle the famine in 2017 the UK Government contributed £900 million. So far in the current crisis we have contributed £156 million. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do much more?”
“The experiences of the constituent of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) are, unfortunately, far too common. The assessments disabled people go through often go badly wrong and the great majority of appeals against refusal succeed. It all causes immense and unnecessary anxiety for disabled people. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions recommended that all assessments should be recorded to help put things right. The assessment providers all support that recommendation. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will give that recommendation very serious and sympathetic consideration?”
“I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) on securing the debate and on her speech. As she said, the Work and Pensions Committee published a report on asbestos management on 30 March last year. Ministers unfortunately rejected our recommendations but, for reasons that we have heard today, the case for action looks even stronger now than it did then. Our report opened with this point: “Asbestos-related illness is one of the great workplace tragedies of modern times.” Asbestos is still the biggest source of work-related fatalities in the UK, and the fact that we used brown asbestos for a long time, and used it very heavily—”
“The Irwin Mitchell report, which has been mentioned, estimates that if we do not do anything, it will take 80 years to get rid of asbestos from all local authority buildings, so we really need to get a move on. Finally, and to echo an earlier intervention, if the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill reaches the statute book in its current form, there will be no UK regulations on managing asbestos for the first time since 1930. I do not think that anybody wants that to happen, so perhaps the Minister can reassure us that there will be secondary legislation to fill that gap. Can she tell us when it will be published and whether it will be consulted on? I ask her as well to reconsider the Government’s response to those two crucial recommendations for a 40-year deadline and a central register.”
“We have heard about the report of the Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association, which I am glad will become an annual report. One of the lessons from that survey is that producing a national central register of asbestos, as recommended by the Select Committee, will not involve massive new data collection. A lot of the data is already there. It needs organising, assessing and quality-assuring, but that is a wholly manageable task. The industry has done a large chunk of it already without any Government support; with Government support, the whole thing becomes a very manageable task. I welcome the programme of inspections in 400 schools that the Health and Safety Executive has been undertaking. The HSE has made the point that a lot of those schools do not have a plan for managing asbestos risk.”
“As the House has been rightly reminded, we recommended a 40-year deadline to remove all asbestos from non-domestic buildings and a plan to achieve it, and that the HSE should develop a central digital register of asbestos in non-domestic buildings. We know that we will have to do a lot of work to our buildings to deliver net zero in the next few decades, and that means two things. First, asbestos left in place will not be left alone for long; it will be disturbed. That potentially creates a big problem, but it also creates an opportunity, because we can remove asbestos at the same time as making the net zero changes that will have to be made, and so achieve removal relatively cost-effectively. That is what we should be doing. Since the Select Committee’s report, published research has strengthened the case for action.”
“The fall in number of asbestos enforcement notices from 2011-12 to 2018-19—a period when the HSE really struggled with resources and should have had more support—was 60%, which was much greater than the fall in the number of HSE enforcement notices in that period, at only 10%. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), told our Committee that the Government had “a clearly stated goal” that “it is right to—over time and in the safest way—work towards there no longer being asbestos in non-domestic buildings.” We agreed with the Minister about that, and I hope the current Minister will reaffirm that view, but we think we need a plan to achieve that goal, not just a hope that it happens by happenstance.”
“The assumption in the current regulations, as the hon. Member for Loughborough said, is that if the asbestos is in reasonable condition and not disturbed, it should not harm anybody, but that assumption looks increasingly unsafe. We have heard from others about the extent of the problem of asbestos in schools and hospitals—I understand that the scale of the threat will be highlighted in a big article in The Sunday Times magazine this coming weekend—but I worry that there has not been enough focus on this problem over the last few years. In 2019-20, the Health and Safety Executive conducted 907 inspections of work by licensed asbestos inspectors, which is 40% fewer than in 2012-13.”
“I do not think the Minister would suggest that we should scrap all asbestos regulations for the first time since 1930, so that does imply that there will be some secondary legislation. Can she give us any indication of when that will be forthcoming?”
“I am grateful for early sight of the statement. I understand why the Secretary of State has chosen to defer the key decision. Like John Cridland’s independent review six years ago, Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s report should have been published soon after the Department received it six months ago, rather than kept needlessly under wraps until today. John Cridland proposed early access to pension credit. Will the Secretary of State consider leaving access to pension credit at age 66 when the state pension age rises to 67 in three years’ time?”
“The Office of Tax Simplification has done valuable work and, having followed the progress of work on the issue since 1995, I am sorry to see it go. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for the decision.”
“Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), said, rather as the Minister said in her opening speech: “I have decided to wind down the Office of Tax Simplification, and mandated every one of my tax officials to focus on simplifying our tax code.” —[ Official Report , 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 937.] If everybody is responsible for something, in reality nobody is, so I do not think we will hear much about further progress on that in the future. It sounds very much like the end of the project. The Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), asked about that in her intervention on the Minister. She has written to the Chancellor on behalf of her Committee to ask why the Office of Tax Simplification is being abolished; we will all be interested to see his reply.”
“PwC goes on to say: “It has produced a number of insightful reports… The response from the Government has been mixed, however, and whilst some of its recommendations have been accepted, many have been watered down or simply ignored.” The real reason that it is being abolished is that, in the end, the Government are not that interested and there are other priorities that have a higher weight than simplifying the tax system. The closure was announced in the disastrous mini-Budget last September. For that reason alone, we ought to be a bit sceptical about whether it is a sensible thing to do. At the time, the then Chancellor, the right hon.”
“That review concluded “that the need for the OTS’s statutory function to advise the Chancellor on simplification of the tax system remains undiminished.” What has happened in the past 18 months to mean that it is now being abolished? PricewaterhouseCoopers makes the point that when Tim Smith’s amendment was moved in 1995, the volume of tax legislation was 5,000 pages and his aim was to reduce it. The hon. Member for South Thanet is correct that it is now 23,000 pages, so it is not clear that the need for simplification has ended. PricewaterhouseCoopers says the Office of Tax Simplification has a “high level of engagement” with the tax profession and that when the office consults on issues, it receives a lot of ideas and contributions about how to do things.”
“Member for South Thanet mentioned this—was the tax law rewrite project, which brought forward a series of five Bills under the Labour Government, which made tax law easier to understand. It certainly did not shorten tax law, but I think it made it easier to understand. The Conservative party returned to the theme in 2010, with its manifesto commitment to set up the Office of Tax Simplification, which is abolished by the Bill. Michael Jack, a previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was the first chair of the project, and John Whiting of the Chartered Institute of Taxation did a lot of the spadework. The Office of Tax Simplification was made statutory in 2016, so we understood it would be a permanent feature of the landscape. It had its first quinquennial review in 2021, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor.”
“Of course, all the Labour Committee members voted in favour of it, so it was agreed to and the Bill was amended in Committee. Ministers were absolutely livid. It was unheard of for the Government to be defeated in the Finance Bill Committee. I do not think that the relationship between Tim Smith and his party’s Front Benchers ever recovered. Within a few weeks, the then Chancellor Ken Clarke was making a virtue of the fact he would bring forward proposals for tax simplification. The idea rapidly gained currency and Tim Smith’s idea was embraced. The spade work was done by Michael Jack, who became the Financial Secretary in 1995. What emerged from it—the hon.”
“It is difficult to understand how that can be justified. I was elected to the Commons in June 1994. As is usual, I served on the Finance Bill Committee the following year—some of my recently elected hon. Friends will have a similar privilege with this Finance Bill. One of the other members of that Committee was the Conservative Back Bencher Tim Smith, the MP for Beaconsfield, who no doubt you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker. He moved an amendment in that Committee to require the Inland Revenue to prepare a report on tax simplification and to lay it before Parliament. To the fury of the Conservative Front Benchers on that Committee, not only did he move the amendment—that is a fairly normal thing to do—but he pressed it to a vote.”
“In the late 1990s, about half of self-employed people were saving in a pension. By December 2021, that was down to 16%, compared with 88% of eligible employees, thanks to the success of auto-enrolment, which is not available to self-employed people. Pension saving for them is now at a very low level. Our report recommends that the Treasury and the DWP should set a date to trial ways to default self-employed people into pension saving, to work out how to replicate the success of auto-enrolment among self-employed people. Tax relief of £1.8 billion could have been a valuable incentive to make a success of an initiative along those lines. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to our report rejected our recommendation. Instead, the Bill is giving away that support to those who already have the largest pension pots.”
“It is a problem that Chancellors, Prime Ministers and Ministers completely unavoidably spend their time talking to people who are in that 1% wealthiest group—they are the people who make representations, who they sit next to at their dinners and so on. By giving a £1.8 billion tax cut to that group, the Chancellor has chosen the wrong priority. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) rightly made the point in passing that it is creating a large tax avoidance opportunity for a large number of people. They will simply not pay the tax that the Bill imposes on them, but will instead choose to put an unlimited amount of money over a lifetime tax-free into their pension. The Work and Pensions Committee’s report on saving for later life, published last September, highlighted the collapse of pension saving among the self-employed.”
“At a time when the tax burden on ordinary families is being raised to the highest level since the second world war, it seems extraordinary that the Chancellor thinks it is right to cut the tax on the 1% largest pension pots. It is a big challenge for pensions policy that tax relief support for pension saving is so massively skewed in favour of the wealthiest. There are suggestions from time to time about how to use that relief more progressively to encourage pension saving among lower-paid workers. Instead, the Chancellor has made the unfairness £1.8 billion worse. It is difficult to understand how that can be justified.”
“I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), whose pensions expertise we benefit from greatly on the Work and Pensions Committee. I want to comment fairly briefly on two aspects of the Bill: first, the decision, at a time when the pension burden on ordinary families is rising so fast, to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest pension savers; and secondly, the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification—and to reflect on the history of that initiative that led us to where we are today. Table 4.1 in the Red Book tells us that the abolition of the lifetime pension allowance will cost the Government £1.8 billion in uncollected tax over three years.”
“I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The current proposal in the Bill is that unaccompanied minors coming here to claim asylum will spend the balance of their childhood here knowing that the day they become 18, the Home Secretary will have an obligation to remove them from the country. Is that not an unconscionable way for any Government to treat children?”
“There are very welcome measures in the White Paper, although a lot of the detail is still missing. The work capability assessment is to be scrapped, starting in three or four years’ time, and replaced with “a new personalised health conditionality approach” to assess entitlement to what the Minister just referred to as the “health top-up” in universal credit. That sounds like a new assessment of some kind. Can he tell us what it means?”
“I am pleased that the White Paper says the Department will keep a focus on the disability employment gap, which is the really telling indicator. Will the new target that the Secretary of State sets relate to that gap, rather than a rather arbitrary number of increased jobs?”
“I welcome his review of that approach, and I hope he will show with this particular case that things have now changed.”
“A witness to the Select Committee yesterday suggested that the flexible support fund might be expanded, at least temporarily, to try to bridge that gap. That could lead to a large amount of important employment support capacity not being lost, which it will be if the gap is allowed to take effect. Lastly, I appeal to the Secretary of State to spare us the embarrassment of the Department’s appealing against the ruling this week by the Information Commissioner that the Department’s research on the impact of benefit sanctions must be published. The Department promised to publish it. As was her wont, his predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), decided to hide as much as possible if it contained any hint of a question mark about the Department’s policies.”
“I hope that a clear target on the disability employment gap will now be adopted. Much will depend on the support that disabled people receive from work coaches. Polling by the charity Scope found that half of jobseekers with complex disabilities do not feel supported by work coaches. The initial training for work coaches does not seem to cover the barriers to work faced by disabled people, and jobcentres lack the specialist assistive technology that many disabled people need to look for and apply for work. The White Paper refers to the potential of the UK shared prosperity fund to provide employment support. It is disappointing that there will be, I think, a two-year gap between the European social fund ending and the UK shared prosperity fund being allowed to support employment projects.”
“I welcome the White Paper’s commitment to test the feasibility of sending a copy of the assessor’s report to claimants automatically before the decision is made, which was also recommended by the Select Committee five years ago. I hope that the feasibility testing will be brief so that that can be introduced across the system soon. It is disappointing that there is still not yet a target for disability employment in the White Paper. The Government congratulate themselves on achieving the previous very undemanding target early, but I am pleased that the White Paper says: “Our goal to reduce the disability employment gap remains.” In the 2015 election campaign, David Cameron announced a target to halve the disability employment gap. Unfortunately, that target was quickly scrapped as soon the general election was out of the way.”