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 74 of 104.
“Recommendation 4 on page 44 of the report says that the DWP should “continue to work to develop a ‘segmentation’ tool, to be conducted by Jobcentre advisers face-to-face with claimants, to allocate claimants to separate work streams according to their distance from the labour market and relative need for intensive employment support.” I know that it is a long-held view among numerous people, including senior Jobcentre Plus staff, that segmentation is a rather illusory thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South used the term “holy grail”—that everybody would like to be able to do: “We would like to be able to tell how much help a person will need to get back into work, but it is unachievable in practice.” However, like my hon. Friend, I am mystified as to why it can be done in Australia but not in the UK.”
“Clearly, the Department has taken the view that it is cost-effective to require Work programme providers to find out that information, so why is it not cost-effective for Jobcentre Plus to do so? That seems to make no sense, and the Committee is right to highlight it in a recommendation. I hope that the change will be made before too long. The other recommendation that I will mention was highlighted by the Chair of the Committee, and I agree with it. It is about segmentation.”
“Of course nobody would regard that as a success in any meaningful sense of the word. It is certainly not what Ministers want to happen in jobcentres. The Government’s response to that recommendation says: “The current JCP performance metrics, focussing on off-flows, make best use of the data currently available to the Department, but do not track people once they leave benefit, as this is not cost-effective.” That is the bit that I want to query. I do not understand why the Government are suggesting that it is not cost-effective to track what happens to people after they go off benefit, because the Government require Work programme providers to do exactly that. Work programme providers are remunerated entirely on the basis of whether somebody is in sustained work.”
“Recommendation 21 on page 48 argues for “the formulation of JCP performance indicators which promote and measure sustained job outcomes and better reflect the changing role of JCP consequent on the implementation of universal credit”. The Committee makes the point—it is often suggested, and I think it is right—that the current measure incentivises behaviour that nobody wants. For example, if somebody goes in and out of claiming benefit—they do a couple of weeks’ work, then go back on benefit because the job fails, then do a couple of weeks’ work somewhere else, then go back on benefit—it makes a big positive contribution to benefit off-flow, because that person is coming off benefit a lot and the fact that they go back on benefit straight away is not picked up in the statistics.”
“Why on earth the Secretary of State is not willing to meet the trust for a similar discussion is a mystery to me, and I still hope that he might change his mind. I share the despair expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) about the extent of the reliance on food banks nowadays. The Trussell Trust makes it absolutely clear that it expects the need for food banks to continue. The scale of the dependence—a million people over the past 12 months—and the rate at which it is growing are causing the trust great concern and prompting questions about whether it can cope with the demand. I want to mention two other points that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) has highlighted as the main recommendations in the report.”
“The Secretary of State has accused the trust of having a political agenda simply, as far as I can tell, on the basis that it insists on publishing numbers about how many people go to food banks. That is a completely innocuous and public-spirited thing to do, but because the trust refuses to stop publishing that information, the Secretary of State accuses it of having a political agenda and being opposed to welfare reform. Given that the Secretary of State has not been willing to meet the Trussell Trust, a couple of months ago I asked the Prime Minister if he would be willing to do so. He said that he would, and I am pleased to say that that meeting has taken place and the discussion was constructive and useful.”
“I believe that the difference between signposting and referring is that when someone is signposted by a jobcentre to a food bank, they are not allowed to fill in the piece of paper issued by the food bank that states why they are being referred. The former approach enabled the Trussell Trust to collect data on how many people were being referred to food banks because they had been the victim of sanctions, benefit delays or other problems at the jobcentre, and the whole thing became too embarrassing for the Secretary of State so he said that he did not want it to continue. It is a great shame that the Secretary of State has refused to meet the Trussell Trust and talk about the matter, because it has a number of sensible ideas about how the system could be made to work better, which would not cost the Government anything.”
“When the Secretary of State was appointed, he rightly took a good deal of pride in announcing that he was lifting a ban on jobcentres referring people to food banks if they were in hardship and did not have enough money to buy food. I was the Minister for employment for a while, and I did not know that there was a ban on referring people to food banks, but apparently there was. The Secretary of State rightly said that that was wrong, and lifted the ban. The problem was that food banks started counting the number of people who were being referred from jobcentres and the reasons why they were being referred, which became far too embarrassing, so the Secretary of State reintroduced the ban on jobcentres referring people to food banks, although he said that it was all right to “signpost” people.”
“It is particularly disappointing, although not surprising, that the Government have rejected recommendation 17 on page 47 of the report about recording the number of people who are signposted to food banks. There is no doubt that the increase in sanctions has played a big part in the remarkable growth of food banks over the past few years. The Committee recommended, as we have heard, that the Department should “take urgent steps to monitor the extent of financial hardship caused by benefit sanctions, including by collecting, collating and publishing data on the number of claimants ‘signposted’ to food aid by Jobcentres and the reasons for claimants’ need for assistance in these cases.” The way in which the Government have dealt with the Trussell Trust has been pretty disgraceful.”
“I asked the Minister about that in a written answer the other day, and characteristically—of Ministers in the previous Government as well as in this one—the reply came back that it would be published “in due course.” Can the Minister give us any more detail? If she can, it would be welcome. As we have heard, the Minister appeared to agree in her evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee that there should be a further review to consider not only Work programme or employment programme sanctions, but sanctions more generally. It was a disappointment to everybody that that commitment was not reflected in the Government response to the report, and I hope that the Minister might reaffirm the view that she expressed to the Committee.”
“Of course, those are anecdotal, but the jobcentre network now has that reputation and it will take a great deal to repair the damage that has been done. A number of references have been made during the debate to the report that the Government commissioned. It is rather rare for the Opposition to be able to force the Government to do anything, but we were able, because the Government needed legislation quite quickly, to force Ministers to set up the review on sanctions, which was carried out by Matthew Oakley. Like everyone else, I am eagerly awaiting the report, which we thought would be published by the end of May but which has still not been published.”
“The job centre gives you a six-week sanction for not replying.” That one came from NetMums. “You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.” That was from The Guardian . “You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.” That was from the Pontefract and Castleford Express . “You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment 9 minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month.” That one was from Consumer Action. As I say, there are pages and pages more on the website.”
“I draw attention to the website “A Selection of Especially Stupid Benefit Sanctions”, which has pages of this stuff: “You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.” That one came from the Daily Mail . “Your gran dies during the night. The next morning your partner calls the job centre and asks if you can come in the following day instead. The centre agrees, and you sign in the next day. Then you get a letter stating that you failed to sign in and would be sanctioned if you don’t reply within seven days. You reply, explaining the situation.”
“I asked them about their experience with Jobcentre Plus, and all four said that the main aim of the jobcentre had seemingly been not to help them but to catch them out and sanction their benefits. I think it is a real tragedy how badly the reputation of Jobcentre Plus has been damaged by the aggressive approach to sanctioning that has been introduced. It will take a lot to repair that damage. In its briefing for the debate, Crisis told us about somebody called Billy “who was sanctioned for turning up to a meeting that turned out to be cancelled and then failing to attend another appointment he knew nothing about because the letter arrived six days after the date of the interview”. We have heard several such stories during the debate.”
“However, the pretty distressing picture that staff whistleblowers are painting is consistent with what a lot of jobseekers say. A few weeks ago, I was invited by Tesco to visit a new store with its HR director. Through the impressive regeneration model that Tesco has developed in partnership with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the company had been very careful to recruit and train a large number of staff at the new store who had previously been unemployed. Tesco put them through an eight-week training course before the store opened. I was introduced to four of the staff who had been recruited in that way, and we talked about their experience.”
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth also talked about—has been a big factor in the growth of food banks. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) is absolutely right to say that no one should hide their head in the sand about that. I had not quite twigged it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made this telling point. Will people who have been sanctioned for a period of months, a year or even three years carry on signing on every fortnight just so that they appear in the claimant count? Of course they will not, and undoubtedly the claimant count is being depressed as a result. Of course, all these reports, from whistleblowers, charities and food banks, can be and sometimes are dismissed as anecdotal.”
“Staff understand that, understandably and probably rightly, as indicating that they are, in part, being evaluated by how many sanctions they have issued—not whether those sanctions were accurate or appropriate, but whether there are enough of them. I think that it is clear that a culture has been developed in which staff are under pressure to issue more sanctions. My constituent talked about the awful working conditions. Let us be frank: that is part of the background to the industrial action taking place today. A good deal of the external interest in this report has focused on the question of sanctions. There is no doubt that the dramatic increase both in the number of sanctions and in the amount of money taken off people—the duration of sanctions, which my hon.”
“My constituent goes on to say that staff “have never experienced working conditions like they have in the last few years…people who have worked so hard implementing the unpopular policies have been treated in an awful manner.” My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East raised the concerns that people have repeatedly drawn attention to that staff in jobcentres are being given targets. There have been the odd, well documented examples of where that has been the case, although in those instances Ministers have stepped in to make it absolutely clear that there are no formal targets, but it is the case, as I understand it, that in regular staff appraisals—this was confirmed, I think, in a written parliamentary answer—the number of sanctions that an adviser has issued is one of the bits of data on the table for the appraisal.”
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) that they are performance improvement programmes— “if they fail to get certain numbers of people off benefit per week…all too often it is the more vulnerable in society it is affecting, and probably not the customers who are too smart to be caught out by the sanctions. The large increase in people using the food banks is mainly due to the unfair benefit sanctions being imposed upon customers. I know the food bank in Hoxton has actually had to ask the JCP in Hackney to stop making so many referrals to them as they are unable to cope with the numbers”.”
“One of my constituents, who works at a jobcentre, raised with me very similar concerns to the ones that we have heard about what is going on. I was very concerned by that. I forwarded her concerns to the Minister. The Minister responded, for which my constituent and I were grateful, and my constituent subsequently wrote to the Minister directly and copied me into what she said. I will quote from her letter, which said that “staff at the Jobcentre are actively encouraged to impose benefit sanctions and are threatened with PIPs”— I was not sure what they were, but I gather from my hon.”
“In the discussions that I have had with trade union members about this issue, the point has not been put to me that there should not be any sanctions. Sanctions have been part of the benefits system ever since the system was invented; there is nothing new about sanctions. I have not heard a case that sanctions should be entirely scrapped, but I do think that there is justified concern, partly expressed in this debate and certainly expressed by trade unions and others, including citizens advice bureaux and disability organisations, about the way in which the system is working at the moment. We heard a good deal in the debate, and I was very interested to hear the contributions about what hon. Members have been told by whistleblowers because I have had a similar experience.”
“I have just been looking at the National Audit Office report, which seems slightly different from the impression the Minister is giving. A press release on the NAO website from 2 July says: “After a poor start, the performance of the Work Programme is at similar levels to previous programmes, according to a report today by the National Audit Office.” It also says: “The Programme has…not improved performance for harder-to-help groups compared to previous schemes.””
“As the Minister says, the report does make the point that the Work programme got off to a rocky start and has improved, but its conclusion is currently that the programme has “not improved”— this is now, not at the start— “performance for harder-to-help groups compared to previous schemes.””
“I remind the Minister of the letter from a whistleblower—a constituent of mine—with whom she has been in touch, who says: “I am not sure if the providers are aware of a ‘good cause’ clause in the process…I don’t think it is being exercised much within the Jobcentre either as it would affect the number of off flows”. I understand the theory, which the Minister set out, but the reality is rather different.”
“The Minister told us she met the Trussell Trust, by which I take it she means that she met people at the local food bank. I welcome that. Is she willing to meet the chief executive of the Trussell Trust, to discuss these issues with him?”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Was she as surprised as I was to learn in the evidence given by Sir Bob Kerslake to the Public Accounts Committee this afternoon that the business case that she has just mentioned, which, according to the report, is due to be finalised by the end of April, has still not been agreed by Her Majesty’s Treasury?”
“It is essential, as the universal credit rescue committee has argued, that the project is now paused. Central policy decisions still have not been made—Ministers cannot spend hundreds of millions of pounds on an IT system if they do not know what it is supposed to do—and Ministers have not made such decisions. As has rightly been said by the rescue committee, taking advice from the former chief information officer of Rolls-Royce, who served on it with distinction, we need a plan that is published, is audited by the National Audit Office and contains milestones with dates, so that everybody knows how the project is going. Why pretend that it going well when it clearly is not?”
“Obsessive secrecy has no doubt spared the blushes of the Secretary of State, at least for a time, but it has hindered progress on the project. It has meant that it has taken longer than it should have done to recognise problems and to deal with them, and a large amount of money has been wasted. If, two years ago, the Secretary of State had put up his hands, and recognised that he and his advisers had got it wrong and that the project would take longer than they first said, much of the subsequent waste and delay could have been avoided. Instead, they just kept on denying that there were any problems, so the problems kept on getting worse—and the project is not finished yet. The project is at least two years late, and it will have wasted much more than the £130 million already acknowledged.”
“Members of the public have made freedom of information requests to see the risk register, the milestone schedule and the project assessment review, but applications have of course been refused, and when the Information Tribunal found in favour of those members of the public, the Department simply appealed again. Ministers are absolutely determined that nobody should know what is really happening. With this project, there is an obsession with hiding things; of pretending that all is well when it obviously is not; and, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, of only admitting to good news. That is not a culture that will deliver a successful project, and it certainly has not delivered success in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn referred to a “bunker mentality”, and there absolutely is such a mentality.”
“To answer the question quite rightly asked by the hon. Member for Warrington South, five different officials have had responsibility for the project since it started. However, the central problem is that the project has been managed primarily with a view to minimising embarrassment for the Secretary of State. That is essentially what decisions have been about. Problems, when obvious, have simply been denied; information that would have shed light on what was going on has been buried; and the people who have asked difficult questions have been fobbed off.”
“947.] Everybody knew that that was untrue. Why do Ministers not simply tell us the truth about what is going on? Some £40 million has been written off so far, with more undoubtedly to come. I was worried about achieving one universal credit IT system in anything like the proposed time scale, but we are now in the extraordinary situation of building two different universal credit IT systems. How much more will that cost? The Select Committee asked that question—surely that is what Select Committees are supposed to ask about—but the Government response simply does not provide any answers. Surely we can at least be told how much extra it will cost us to have two IT systems instead of one. Lessons also need to be learned from another group of serious failures—the governance failures in the project.”
“Late last year, it was finally admitted that the transition to universal credit will not be complete by 2017. Everybody has known that for months. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was right to make some very thoughtful comments about that. However, while everybody knew about the problems, Ministers flatly denied them. The Secretary of State told the House on 5 September 2013: “The plan is, and has always been, to deliver this programme within the four-year schedule to 2017…that is exactly what the plan is today. We will deliver this in time”. —[ Official Report , 5 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 472.] That was complete fantasy. He was still doing it on 18 November, when he said that “universal credit will roll out and deliver exactly as we said it would.” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c.”
“As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in a television interview, implementation has been “lamentable”. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 16 November 2010 to point out that his timetable was unrealistic, and I wrote to him again on 18 April 2011. The Secretary of State wrote a perfectly friendly response on both occasions, but simply denied that he had a problem. In November 2011, the Secretary of State announced that 1 million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014; in fact, there were approximately 6,000. In May 2012, he announced that new applications for existing benefits and credits would be entirely phased out by April 2014; Ministers now say that that will not happen until 2016. Even assuming that everything goes well from here, which it will not, the project is at least two years late.”
“The decision to pay universal credit to only one member of a couple, rather than reflecting the current system in which payment with respect for children is paid to the main carer—an arrangement with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are particularly familiar—raises significant risks for many women and their children. Universal credit also creates an extraordinary new red tape burden for self-employed people and partners in small partnerships who want to claim universal credit. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales says that about 60,000 partners in small partnerships will want to claim universal credit and that it will be virtually impossible for them to meet the proposed red tape challenge. It is the policy failures that are the most serious, but it is the delivery failures that are the most spectacular.”
“If that happens, it will create a huge new work disincentive in universal credit for a very large number of people that will be far worse than anything in the current system, for all its flaws. The universal credit rescue committee—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for drawing attention to its work—submitted its report to the Labour party two weeks ago. It pointed out that the work incentives for second earners in a couple are a good deal worse in universal credit than they are in the current system. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth underlined the importance of that point. Leaving council tax support out of universal credit undermines simplicity, with many claimants facing two separate rates of benefit withdrawal when they move into work or their incomes increase.”
“Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has reminded us, she and I served on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. On 24 March 2011, the Secretary of State said: “we have to resolve some of these issues like free school meals…You asked when. I believe that during the Committee stage we should be in a much stronger position to make it much clearer how we will do that.” –– [ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 154-55, Q299.] The Committee stage ended on 24 May 2011, just over three years ago. When I asked the Schools Minister about the subject last Thursday, he said that an announcement would be made “shortly”. It appears that we are heading for some sort of income threshold.”
“That is not a minor detail; it is a very serious problem for the aim of making sure that people are always better off if their income goes up. If the truth is that a household will suddenly lose their entitlement to free school meals if they reach a specific income threshold—that appears to be where we are heading—of, for example, £9,000 a year, their income will be a great deal less than it was before the small increase that triggered that change. The Citizens Advice briefing for today’s debate has an example of a lone parent who, if free school meals are decided on the basis of income threshold, “will be worse off by taking on extra work however many hours she works”. Solving that genuine policy difficulty is at the heart of what the Government are trying to do with universal credit. As my hon.”
“However, the difficulty involved in achieving that apparently simple goal was never understood by Ministers, and the hard graft of delivering it has therefore never been done. Last September’s National Audit Office report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has rightly described as cataclysmic, noted: “Throughout the programme the Department has lacked a detailed view of how Universal Credit is meant to work.” That has been the central failure: the Department simply has not worked out what the system is supposed to do. More than three years after the implementation of universal credit started, we still do not know, as we have been reminded in this debate, which recipients of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals for their children.”
“434W.] The Minister said that the Treasury had agreed the business case, but today the head of the civil service told the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasury has not agreed the business case. The Minister owes us an explanation of the discrepancy between her answer a week ago and what the head of the civil service has said today. The project has suffered from three levels of failure: policy failure, delivery failure and governance failure. I will say a little about each of them. First, policy failure is perhaps the most serious one. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) has rightly pointed out, the point of universal credit was to make sure that people would be better off if their income increased because they got a job or did extra hours or for some other reason.”
“Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) about this afternoon’s announcement by the head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, that the Treasury has not yet approved the revised business case? A week ago today, the Minister said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: “The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement (5 December 2013, Official Report, column 65WS)”. —[ Official Report , 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c.”
“Paragraph 7 of chapter 5 stated: “The IT changes that would be necessary to deliver a more integrated system would not constitute a major IT project”. There was an utter failure, right at the outset, to grasp the scale of what the Government were about to embark on. How on earth the phrase “would not constitute a major IT project” came to be written in a Green Paper, I have absolutely no idea, but I am quite sure that no official in the Department would have been responsible for writing such a ludicrous claim. I am afraid that from that moment on, things have got progressively worse. Will the Minister comment specifically on my intervention on my hon.”
“The Work and Pensions Committee has done the House a service with its report, and the tributes to its Chair from both sides of the House are well deserved. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is absolutely right to say that there is widespread agreement that universal credit is, in principle, a good idea, but I am afraid the universal credit project has had all the hallmarks of disaster right from the start, as a number of us pointed out at the time. Everybody hoped, as we were assured, that the lessons of previous failures had been learned, but unfortunately they had not. It started to go wrong within just a few weeks of the general election. Ministers published a Green Paper entitled “21st Century Welfare”—I have my well-thumbed copy with me—which introduced the idea of universal credit.”
“As I have said, the idea for the pause is based on the recommendation of Jonathan Mitchell, the retired chief information officer of Rolls-Royce, who has managed extremely large IT projects in that company—possibly even larger than those for which the hon. Gentleman had responsibility. He has said that when a project is as out of control as this one clearly is, it is essential to stop, to make policy decisions and to draw up a plan before simply shovelling in hundreds of millions pounds more.”
“I will not, because I should conclude. Outstanding policy issues need to be decided, the work incentive design flaws need to be fixed and a hard-headed view needs to be taken about whether this project can be rescued within an acceptable time and cost. Opposition Members hope the answer to such a question will be yes, but we cannot assume that it will be. The question needs to be asked frankly and answered honestly. It should not be left until the election; it should be done now.”
“Is it the case, as the Minister said in her written answer on Monday last week, that the Treasury has approved the universal credit business case—yes or no?”
“Will the Minister tell us, then, why the head of the civil service today told the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasury has not approved the universal credit business case?”
“The analyst, Redburn, has pointed out that claims that the UK is doing well on superfast broadband are “only true using a rather unambitious definition of superfast”. A number of European countries now have over 20% fibre- to-the-home penetration, with symmetric 100 megabits- per-second services. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), told me in a written answer on 23 June that he does not know how much of that we have in the UK, but the industry estimates penetration to be about 0.5%. Surely we need to be doing much better.”
“The pupil premium is based on free school meal eligibility, but we still do not know which recipients of universal credit will be entitled to free school meals for their children. We have been waiting for this decision for about three years, and I think the delay is because of a disagreement—or an inability to reach agreement—between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education. Is the Minister able to tell us when that very important policy decision will be made?”
“It is high time that Ministers took responsibility for their failings. It was their decision, after the election, to migrate all recipients of incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. That was the decision that triggered the delays and backlogs about which we have heard. Now, the memos that were leaked last week have revealed that ESA “is not delivering more positive outcomes for claimants” than incapacity benefit did, and the Work programme has proved hopeless, with a 94% failure rate. How long will Ministers allow this shambles to continue?”
“I noticed the submission made by the Orkney Islands council on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s website that made a strong case for a derogation from the bedroom tax for remote and rural island areas. But the truth is, whether we are talking about cities, towns or rural areas, the bedroom tax needs to be scrapped. Given that there are not smaller homes to move to, many people simply have to take the hit. Many are now in rent arrears, and those who simply cannot afford the extra and cannot find anywhere to move to are going to lose their homes.”