Mike Amesbury: That Esther McVey hasn’t resigned says everything about this Tory government

Reading the newspapers last weekend, it wasn’t surprising to see more talk of cabinet resignations with reports that Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey was considering her position. In any other political time or scenario, this would have been no surprise, given that the Secretary of State had faced a censure motion for misleading the House of Commons just days earlier.

It is indicative of both Theresa May’s lack of authority and this Tory government’s current contempt for process and parliament that the reason for these deliberations was not the Secretary of State’s ministerial behaviour but unease at the direction of the Prime Minister on Brexit.

Last week I was proud to be appointed shadow minister for employment. I would hope that, as a former careers advisor and Connexions manager, I can bring some knowledge and experience to the table. I made my despatch box debut in a debate on Universal Credit and Esther McVey’s recent response to reports relating to her policy.

Having listened to every word of the debate, and responded on behalf of the opposition, my reaction to the news story was to reflect that, if Esther McVey believes concern at government policy is worthy of resignation, she need not look to Brexit for a reason to fall on her sword. There is more than enough evidence in the department she currently runs.

Earlier this month, the Secretary of State was forced to apologise to parliament for misleading the House, after inaccurately claiming that a report from the respected and independent National Audit Office had called for the rollout of Universal Credit to be speeded up (it had actually called for the reverse).

The Secretary of State had also made two further controversial claims in relation to how current the information considered in the report was, and whether Universal Credit was fit for its purpose. On both counts the NAO took issue with the Secretary of State’s interpretation of their findings. However, the Secretary of State refused to accept that she was in the wrong, and refused to apologise.

It was the Secretary of State’s approach to the facts that led to Frank Field likening her comments to “Trumpisms”. This reference may well will stick, as a result of not only her original misinterpretation, but because of the method in which her errors were explained away, without any apparent reflection or remorse.  

The Secretary of State had said:

“I know that this is about the impact, and I know that what I said was substantially correct, but I wanted to double check.”

“So I double checked whether I had used the wrong words, and it was after that that I made the apology, because my interpretation, although it was right, was not based on the exact words.”

Comparisons with the current US President aside, perhaps the more important question to ask is what would happen to a Universal Credit claimant whose response to a letter from Jobcentre Plus were to say “my interpretation, although it was right, was not based on the exact words”?

We can all make mistakes – but for those accessing DWP services, the immediate consequences are all too often further hardship and debt, as a result of the current “sanction before support” culture enforced by those at the top.

We heard tale after tale of delays, mistakes and suffering in the application of Universal Credit. These tales offer a real life, real-time picture of the realities of how this government is operating their policy. If anyone really did sympathise with Esther McVey’s assertion that the NAO report was not based on the most current information (despite it having been signed by the Secretary of State’s own officials), surely these cases were a stark reminder of the reality. They are a reminder that even Tory MPs shouldn’t need.

Whilst one or two Members made thoughtful and constructive contributions, the tone deaf response of the Secretary of State to Liam Byrne’s tale of a parent who couldn’t afford socks for their children reinforced the impression that this Tory government either doesn’t get it, doesn’t care, or both.

I share very little politically with Esther McVey, but as Cheshire MPs we share a constituency border, and our constituents share a JobCentre and a foodbank. It is a foodbank where demand has risen by 41% in a year. The staff who work there tell me this is as a result of the roll-out of Universal Credit Full Service locally.

It is clear that the Secretary of State did not share Labour’s view of the need to stop and solve the problems with Universal Credit, and there appears to be little concern at the rise in foodbank usage by the people we represent. That leads me to the following question: if a government minister cannot recognise problems with a defective policy in their own backyard, why are they still in charge of rolling out this failing policy across the rest of the country?

Parliamentary arithmetic meant that we lost the vote on censure – but I don’t believe we lost the argument that Universal Credit, as it stands, is not fit for purpose. And the events of the last fortnight have illustrated that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not fit for the job.

This is not a personal attack on Esther McVey. This is criticism based on hard evidence about failing government policies and the Secretary of State’s competence to deliver positive change. Thousands upon thousands of people across the country need a benefit system that is effective and fair, compassionate and supportive. Universal Credit should be all of those things.

It seems that misreading a vital report, or even misleading parliament, isn’t enough these days to make a cabinet minister consider their position. It says everything about this out of touch government and its approach to accountability that the Secretary of State’s concern is related to Brexit, and not the disastrous performance of the department for which she is responsible.

Mike Amesbury is MP for Weaver Vale and shadow minister for employment.