Welfare Reform Bill

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a substantial number of Lords amendments. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 51

Period of entitlement to contributory allowance

12:41

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

[Chris Grayling]

Throughout the process of the Bill in both this House and the other place, we have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised. We have taken them on board wherever possible and provided important clarifications on the Government’s position and responses to technical concerns. However, let us be clear that we stand firmly behind the aims and detail of our reforms.

As you indicated, Mr Speaker, Lords amendments 15, 17, 18 and 23 impinge on the financial privileges of this House. I ask the House to disagree to those amendments, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. It cannot be denied that we are in extremely difficult financial times, and that the Government have no choice but to take measures to address the situation. Tackling the unsustainable rise in spending on benefits and tax credits, as part of the Government’s overall deficit reduction strategy, is undeniably important. However, I emphasise that the affordability of the welfare system is just one objective of the reforms being introduced in the Bill.

We are making principled reforms that will finally tackle the trap of welfare dependency. Universal credit will ensure that work always pays, lifting 900,000 individuals out of poverty, including more than 350,000 children and about 550,000 working-age adults. The Bill will also deliver fairness for claimants and for the taxpayers who fund the system. We will discuss the benefit cap in the next group of Lords amendments, but it is clearly not fair, for example, that households on out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average earnings of working households. Finally, our reforms will radically simplify the system, ensuring that it is easier for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Hon. Members should be clear that those are vital principles, of which financial considerations are only one part.

I turn specifically to the provisions on employment and support allowance that are dealt with by this group of amendments. I shall set out the Government’s full rationale for rejecting the Lords amendments. First, Lords amendment 15 was simply a paving amendment that had no effect. Lords amendment 17 would increase the time limit for claimants receiving contributory ESA in the work-related activity group from the proposed 365 days to a minimum of 730 days, which would have to be prescribed in regulations.

12:45

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On contributory benefit, does the Minister accept that giving a person who has made a recovery after suffering from cancer only 365 days to get back into work is a little prescriptive? Does he accept that the Lords amendment would allow them additional time—up to two years—to get back into work? The amendment is about fairness for those people alone.

[Chris Grayling]

I will talk in more detail about cancer, which is one of the measures we are addressing. I accept that there are anxieties in respect of cancer, but the approach that we are taking to all our reforms, and particularly those relating to sickness and disability, is that we should not write off automatically any individual with a particular condition. Applying a one-size-fits-all measure to any one condition is the wrong thing to do.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The Minister initially said that the Government are introducing their measures because they need to save money on the welfare Bill, but he also said—I hope there is great support in the House for this—that their measures will shape behaviour. Are the national insurance measures designed to shape and change behaviour, and in what way will they do so, or are they merely just to save money? In other words, is the Minister doing what the Treasury has required him to do on national insurance?

[Chris Grayling]

The important thing about that measure is that we must have a welfare system in which people have confidence. The principle of our proposal reflects the principle used in the jobseeker’s allowance system—people should get something back for what they have contributed, but not indefinitely. The Government’s measures simply seek to extend that principle to the group on ESA.

[Mr Field]

I do not think there is any agreement on that. Is it not possible to honour national insurance contributions and attach “seeking work” requirements?

[Chris Grayling]

The principle I described is a long-standing one that has been applied to other benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance. It is important to state that the Government are not taking benefits away from people who have no other form of income, or from people in the support group who need long-term, unconditional help. The measure simply affects those in the work-related activity group. It applies to them the same principle that exists in jobseeker’s allowance.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does not the Government’s proposal conflict with what they are trying to do? The Minister says that benefits will not be taken away from those who have nothing, but their measure will take away benefits from, for example, a couple in which one partner is in part-time work. They could be asked to dig into what they have saved for retirement.

[Chris Grayling]

The principle of the welfare state that I described—that it is there to provide a safety net for those who have no other form of income—has operated for a very long time, including under the previous Government. The welfare state provides a degree of support to those who have another form of income, but it is a long-standing principle of the jobseeker’s allowance system that such support is not unlimited. We are simply applying that same principle to ESA for people who are deemed to have the potential, in due course, to return to work.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that many of us are grateful for what the House of Lords has done? It has acted as the conscience of Parliament. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government are today determined to reverse its decision. What is so obnoxious about the Government’s measures is that the most vulnerable are being hit, meaning not only cancer patients, but others with life-threatening diseases. It seems that the Government are totally indifferent to the group of people who will be harmed as a result of their proposals.

[Chris Grayling]

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he is a member of a party whose leader and shadow Secretary of State made speeches a fortnight ago on the need to take tough decisions on welfare. I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman says is another example of the disconnect that exists within the Opposition.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What taxpayers in my constituency find obnoxious is people who use the welfare state as an alternative lifestyle choice rather than as a safety net, for which it was first intended. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government, through this measure and their other changes, are trying to go back to what the welfare state was initially intended for, namely a safety net rather than an alternative lifestyle choice?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to have a system that is fair both to the taxpayer who pays for it and to the recipients. As a result of these reforms, we will have a system that is fairer to those receiving support and also fairer to those who are paying for that support.

Support to find work, for those people who will be affected, will be available for all ESA claimants from the outset of their claim, through Jobcentre Plus on a voluntary basis until the outcome of the work capability assessment and, following the WCA, for those claimants placed in the work-related activity group, through Jobcentre Plus or through the Work programme. Every single person who is on ESA, including those on a contributory basis, has access to the Work programme.

Some have said that the limit is arbitrary. I do not accept that. As the Minister with responsibility for welfare reform explained in the other place, it is similar to that applied by several countries around the world, including France, Ireland and Spain, and strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that someone who has been in the work-related activity group on contributory ESA for two years who subsequently gets reassessed as belonging to the support group will have their ESA reinstated even though they do not have the national insurance contributions that would allow that to happen?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that that is the case. We have listened very carefully on this issue, and it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) in Committee. We have listened and we have taken appropriate action. It is important that we look at such details to ensure that we get them right, but that does not detract from the overall principle of what we are trying to achieve.

I believe that a time limit of one year is the correct approach. It applies the right balance between restricting access to contributory benefits and allowing those with longer term illnesses to adjust to their health condition and surrounding circumstances. There is also a very strong financial argument. If accepted, this amendment would reduce the total savings in the spending review period by around a third by 2016-17, which is £1.6 billion. Given the current fiscal climate, we cannot afford to forgo these savings and this is one of a number of very difficult decisions the Government have had to make because, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out at the time, there was no money left.

Lords amendment 18 would mean that no time limit would be applied to contributory ESA for those claimants receiving treatment for cancer if they have or are treated as having limited capability for work, or they have or are treated as having limited capability for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis. The whole point of our approach on these matters is that we have always looked at the effects of a condition on an individual, rather than at the condition itself. We can all think of other cases which could equally be regarded as special cases. We are trying to be sensitive to the very real concerns of individuals suffering from cancer, and since we took office we have made significant changes to improve the protection and support that we provide to them.

Most individuals with cancer are placed in the support group at the outset of their treatment. We have increased the scope of the support group for cancer patients. We have been working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief to improve how the WCA assesses individuals being treated for cancer. We are now consulting on our proposals, following work by Macmillan and Professor Harrington, our independent assessor of the work capability assessment.

We are clear that our proposals, which are now out to consultation, include a presumption that someone with cancer will be in the support group. What we simply do not accept is that in all circumstances, regardless of the impact of cancer on an individual’s ability to work or otherwise, they should be guaranteed a position in the support group. We have not taken that approach with any other condition and we do not believe that we should take it with cancer.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I know that there has been some discussion in the last few days about whether, if a doctor or nurse were able to provide confirmation that a person with cancer was not able to work, that person would be automatically passported into the support group. Is that something that the Government intend to introduce?

[Chris Grayling]

It is very much our intention—especially for those who have finished their treatment but are not yet prepared to return to work—to have a simple system that enables a medical professional to indicate to us that that person is not yet sufficiently recovered to make a return to work. Our proposals are out to consultation at the moment, but our overall clear goal is that, in the vast majority of cases, someone who is undergoing treatment for cancer or is recovering from the aftermath of that treatment should be in the support group. What we cannot accept is a principle for absolutely all cases and regardless of circumstance, and some people with cancer do work—

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned Macmillan, which is a well respected organisation. It estimates that some 7,000 cancer patients could lose up to £94 a month. Is that right?

[Chris Grayling]

The issue comes back to the core principle of why we are imposing the time limit. We are not taking benefits away from people who do not have other financial means. The people who will be affected by the 12-month time limit—not just cancer patients, but generally—are those who either have another household income or who have many thousands of pounds of savings in the bank. They are the ones affected. We are not taking contributory support away from those people in the support group. Most cancer patients, as I have just described, will be in that support group. We are not taking benefits away from them, just from those with other financial means.

[Mr Winnick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

If amendment 18 were accepted, it is estimated that it would cost around £90 million cumulatively by 2016-17 based on a two-year time limit, or around £140 million cumulatively based on a one-year time limit. That would be a significant additional cost for the taxpayer, and would fly in the face of a principle that we have tried to bring to this whole process, which is that we do not bracket any condition into one absolute position. We look at each individual case to understand the impact of the condition on the ability to work.

The third area of focus this afternoon is our proposed changes to the condition relating to entitlement to ESA on grounds of limited capability during youth. These changes are part of our principled approach to reform. We want to modernise and simplify the current welfare system, focus support, avoid duplication of provision and redefine the contract between the state and individuals, in advance of the introduction of universal credit. It cannot be right that, for example, where a claimant has qualified for contributory ESA under the youth provisions and some years later they receive a substantial inheritance, they should be able to continue to receive unlimited contributory ESA without the need to have paid any contributions and without any condition from the state.

These proposals will not affect those in receipt of income-related ESA. We expect that around 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will be a simple transition from their point of view. Only some 10% will not qualify because they have other means available to them—and I emphasise that that means a partner in full-time work or capital of more than £16,000. We are merely targeting the support the Government can provide to where it is needed most. I do not think it is right that someone with independent income or capital should be able to access state support on a long-term, ongoing and unconditional basis.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Can the Minister clarify absolutely that a 20-year-old who will never work and who lives at home with their parents will be able to get income-related ESA? Obviously it cannot be contributory as they have made no national insurance contributions. Even if they live in a household above income support levels, will they continue to get income-related ESA in their own right?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot give an undertaking in all circumstances, because every circumstance will be different. But 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will depend on the circumstances of each individual case.

We have already mentioned the fact that the Government amendments allow claimants to re-qualify for a further award of contributory ESA after their ESA has ceased as a result of time limiting, and they are later placed in the support group because of a deterioration in their health. That applies equally to ESA youth claimants.

13:00

There is, however, another factor to take into account—and this, again, is an example of why this is about more than just money. We must also consider the impact of the Stewart judgment given in the European Court on 21 July 2011, as a result of which someone living abroad can qualify for benefit without having to satisfy the past presence test, if they can demonstrate a genuine and sufficient link to the United Kingdom. The Court determined that Ms Stewart arguably could demonstrate a link with the UK because she was in receipt of another UK benefit, was dependent on her parents, who were UK pensioners, and had spent a significant part of her life in the UK.

We want people to qualify only if they have lived in the UK recently prior to the claim, but we are also obliged to take account of the Court’s case-law view of what constitutes a sufficient link. We strongly disagree with the Court’s ruling. The effect of that EU judgment is that we can no longer have a blanket past presence test of this kind for benefit claimants. As a result, the ESA youth provision is potentially more widely available than intended, and given that we are bound by EU law, there is nothing, short of abolition, that we can do by way of domestic legislation—even primary legislation—to change its effect. As a consequence, we could end up paying this benefit, on a long-term unconditional basis, to more people who have never lived in the United Kingdom but who can simply demonstrate a link to it.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister confirm that the case in question relates to a disabled young woman who is living with her British parents—in Spain, I think—but who was born and brought up in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

It relates to someone who has not lived in the UK for most of the past 15 years, although she is a British national and has a link to the UK. The implication of the court case is that somebody who has a link to the UK but who has had no recent contact with it is none the less entitled to receive benefits. That is where we disagree with the European Court and why we think that its decision was wrong.

We think that the best way to close this door is to abolish the ESA youth provision, but it is not the only reason we are abolishing the youth provision. It is by no means the sole rationale for doing so, but as a matter of principle it is our view that we should make every effort to ensure that our benefits are paid only to those whom we think should be paid UK benefits—those who have recent connections to, or have lived in, the United Kingdom.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I want to try to follow the Minister’s logic a step further. Is he going on to propose that British citizens who have retired abroad—for example, to Spain—will not be able to receive their pensions in the years to come? Is that the logical extension of his argument?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course it is not. We are saying that somebody should not be able to claim a benefit for the first time having not lived in the United Kingdom for many years. That is the argument that we put to the European Court, and it is a principle that we stand by. I emphasise that that is one of the reasons, but by no means the only reason, why we are taking this measure.

[Mr Frank Field]

Has the Minister talked to the Secretary of State about this? Would a more logical position not be that we get exemptions from the European Court ruling, and not distort our social security system to fit the European Court’s decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

I would love to secure a more pragmatic and sensible approach to the regulation of social security in Europe. I have been working on it for the past 18 months with my counterparts in other member states, and I hope that we will make progress as soon as possible. Right now, however, we must obey European case law as delivered to us by the European Court—much as it sometimes might be frustrating to do so.

I have a couple of technical points to make before I finish. As a result of providing for the new category of entitlement, in respect of claimants whose health has deteriorated to such a degree that they are placed in the support group—I referred to this earlier in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg)—it has been necessary to remove the substance of the ESA youth time-limiting measure from the original clause 52 and to insert it in clause 51 via a new subsection in section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The Opposition amended that new subsection by changing the period of the time limit from 365 days to a period to be prescribed of at least 730 days. That is Lords amendment 19. As a result, the House will need to agree to amendment 19 but with an amendment consequential upon the rejection of the other amendments providing for entitlement to ESA to be for 730 days rather than 365 days. This will restore the Government’s intention.

A similar complexity surrounds amendment 22, which was voted for in the other place and which ensures that no new claims can be made under the youth provisions in the future—in effect, from whenever that provision is commenced by order. This amendment would amend clause 52 by removing the substance of ESA youth time limiting, which is now included in clause 51, but would retain the key provision in clause 52 preventing new ESA youth claims from being made.

I am afraid that this position is further complicated by the fact that also in the other place amendment 23 was not pushed to a vote and therefore also stands part of the Bill. Amendment 23 effectively allows claims to be made to contributory ESA under the youth provisions for those that are placed in the support group. We therefore now have two conflicting clauses for conditions relating to youth. Finally, if amendment 23 were to be accepted, it would reduce the expected cumulative benefit savings by around £17 million by 2016-17—savings that would need to be found elsewhere in the benefits system.

In the light of these arguments—the urgent need to address the fiscal deficit we have inherited and the need to deliver principled reform to our welfare state—I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government.

[Stephen Timms]

The Government are determined to insert some terrible things in the Bill, and none of them is worse than the indefensible one-year time limit on contributory employment and support allowance for people in the work-related activity group. Amendment 17 removes that one-year limit. The Government are trying to put it back. Now, with the blanket appeal that we have heard for financial privilege, they are trying to prevent the other place from daring to disagree with them once again.

The measure is literally indefensible: the Government have been unable to defend it. The Minister made no effort to defend it in his speech, other than to point out that it would save a great deal of money. He referred to what happens in other European countries, but there, of course, the support that people fall back on is much more generous than here. There is no defence for the one-year time limit, and the House needs to be aware that this change will start to impact in two months’ time, at the beginning of April. According to the Government, 100,000 people will lose contributory benefits at the beginning of April this year, having already been in receipt of contributory ESA for more than one year, and another 100,000 will lose it as they reach the one-year stage of their claim over the following 12 months.

Some people argue that ESA should not be limited at all—for example, the Liberal Democrats. At their party conference, they opposed any arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA, and the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Thomas of Winchester told Members of the other place that what troubled the conference last year was

“the arbitrary nature of the one-year cut-off.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 158.]

Liberal Democrat party policy is clear on this, but we understand that today its elected representatives will take no notice of it.

The Lords amendments that the Government want to overturn are much more modest. They argue that the time limit should be not less than two years and, crucially, that the limit should be set down in regulations rather than in primary legislation. If the Government get their way, absurdly it would require a new Act of Parliament to change the limit. Throughout debates on the Bill—many Members have been present in Committee and other stages of the Bill—the Minister has told us that the purpose of the Bill is to provide the structure and that the details would be in regulations. On this measure, however, with no explanation, the opposite approach has been applied. These debates provide a clear indication of whether Ministers mean what they say when they tell us these things, or whether they are simply reading the script put in front of them.

We do not quarrel with time limiting. As the Minister said, contributory jobseeker’s allowance has been time-limited to six months for many years. The rationale has always been that within six months more than 90% of jobseekers are back in work. If it is to be fair, however, a time limit for ESA must also give people a reasonable chance to get back into work. A year is not enough. The Government’s own figures suggest that 94% of those who qualify for ESA are still on it a year later, so fewer than 6% are managing to get into a job within a year.

[Chris Grayling]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he has factored into his considerations the typical six-month period that somebody in that position would have spent on statutory sick pay before they started on contributory ESA?

[Stephen Timms]

The question is: how long do people need to be on ESA before they get back into work? According to the Minister’s figures, only 6% are off the benefit within a year, whereas 90% are off contributory jobseeker’s allowance within the period that is being allowed for that benefit.

[Chris Grayling]

I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman answered my question. I asked him to what extent he had factored in the additional six months that most people would have had on statutory sick pay before starting 12 months on contributory ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

I answered the Minister’s question. What his figures show is that only 6% of those who go on to ESA—no doubt many of them will have been on statutory sick pay before that—are in a position to come off the benefit within one year. That is not a reasonable chance to get back to work, as I think the Minister will recognise if he reflects on the matter.

As the Minister said, Lords amendment 18 specifically addresses cancer. I do not think that anyone in this House will be surprised to learn that, for many cancer patients, 12 months is not long enough to become well enough to get back into work. At 12 months, many people are still experiencing debilitating physical and psychological effects from the cancer and from its treatment. People cannot go back to work in those circumstances, and that is why Macmillan Cancer Relief, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to, says that

“proposals that ESA claimants who are expected to carry out work-focused activities will only receive the benefit for one year, without being means-tested, will hit cancer patients particularly hard”.

Macmillan also says:

“Three quarters…of people with cancer placed in the ESA Work-Related Activity Group are still claiming ESA 12 months later.”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister, with his rather “Let them eat cake” answer to our right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), was emphasising that the 7,000 people affected would generally have another income available to them? That ignores, first, that that other income could be quite modest; secondly, their family circumstances; and, most importantly, the fact that they face other costs—of a personal, family and household nature—because of their condition.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers say that there is no need to worry because means-tested ESA will still be there, but if a partner is earning £7,500 a year, no means-tested support will be provided at all.

In the other place, Baroness Hayter quoted a letter from a 59-year-old man currently on contributory ESA who has worked and paid into the system since he was 15—that is, for 44 years. Now, when his health is failing, he will be left on the poverty line. He draws the obvious conclusion—this picks up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier—saying:

“It would be better if my wife stopped working then perhaps I could claim income-related ESA—just like any person who has never worked”.

That is the position that this change is putting people in. The Government say they want to reward work; with this measure, they are scrapping the reward for work.

[Mr Frank Field]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, perhaps he could dwell on that point. The Government rightly say that this Bill is about changing and shaping behaviour, and for all of us in this House, it is important to know that this year we will probably crash through the £200 billion mark. Anybody who thinks that that does not affect people’s behaviour is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, what message is this Bill sending out, when those who have provided and paid their contributions will get no benefits if there is any other income in their house, whereas those who have not played by the rules—who have decided that they will coast it on the back of taxpayers—get rewards?

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the message that this measure is sending to people in that situation is, “You’ve wasted your time.” Indeed, that is the case not only if they have a partner with an income, but if they have any savings. If they have more than £16,000 saved, there will be no means-tested support at all.

Members need to be clear about what the Government will be doing if they get their way. Under this measure, people who are in the middle of a health crisis will be plunged into a financial catastrophe. People who have worked and paid into the system all their lives—people who have, as my right hon. Friend says, done the right thing—will find that the system is not there to help them when they need it.

[Chris Grayling]

The shadow Minister has just talked about the position of somebody who has a spouse who is earning £7,500 a year. Will he confirm to the House that as a result of a diminution of household income, they would also be entitled to working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and possibly to child tax credit, and that therefore the amount of support that they will receive is substantially more than he is suggesting?

13:15

[Stephen Timms]

It will be a financial catastrophe for a very large number of people, and the Minister should listen to what people in that position are saying to him, because they have made their position extremely clear.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, very simply, this change that the Government are seeking is saying to cancer patients, “You will be penalised because you are not recovering quickly enough”? That is where the insult rests: they are doing their best.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 12 months is simply not long enough for a very large number of cancer patients—or other patients, in fact—to get back to work.

Lords amendment 18 was moved in the other place by Lord Patel, the Cross-Bench peer who was formerly president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. He quoted a man with renal cancer who had had a kidney removed and who started claiming ESA in March last year. His partner earns £160 per week, but if the Government win, that man will lose all his contributory benefit in April. He says:

“We have used up virtually all our savings already. I have worked all my life and paid into the system but this doesn't seem to mean anything”.

Is that really how the Government want their system to work? Of course, it is not just cancer patients who will be affected.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that it is completely illogical to single out cancer as a separate disease when, in fact, there are many illnesses and conditions that may result in someone being unfit for work and when, under these provisions, they would be provided for by being put in the support group?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—indeed, I am just going on to make that very point. It is not just cancer patients who will be affected; there are many other people in exactly the same position. That is why we have argued for a two-year limit instead of a one-year limit, because with a two-year limit there is a chance for people to get back into work. The National Aids Trust makes the point:

“Many people living with HIV who are found eligible will face significant barriers to work that cannot be overcome within 12 months.”

[Dame Anne Begg]

The other group of people who will be affected by the time-limiting are those who have slowly progressive degenerative conditions. Initially on diagnosis, they may not be able to work—or they may have fallen out of work—but their conditions will not be severe enough for them to be placed in the support group, and they could spend up to 10 years without any kind of independent income-replacement benefit.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A woman with Parkinson’s disease also makes exactly that point:

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer. I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have a… time limit is…unfair and stressful.”

The charity Sense points out that for some people in the work-related activity group, once their health has stabilised, they will need to retrain to get back into work. It will be impossible for them to do that within the 12-month period that is being proposed.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about those constituents of mine who have had strokes and who are not able to return to work within that period of time, and the concern that DWP officials are implementing the legislation in advance of its being on the statute book?

[Stephen Timms]

I was not aware of that, and I am concerned to hear it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that stroke is exactly the type of condition that we are talking about. In the other place, Lord Low read out a letter that had been written to him, which said:

“The state is breaking its side of the contract at a time when people are most vulnerable”,

having had a stroke, or whatever it is. Someone else was quoted in that debate in the other place who made the point that the news of the time limit

“came as a massive shock to me. I have found it…hard to come to terms with the fact that the government can be so cruel”.

They continued:

“My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.

This is a dreadful proposal. Removing contributory benefit long before most people will have a chance to get back to work will remove an absolutely key plank of the contributory system. In the past, people have been able to depend on support in the event of a health disaster. This change will mean that that will no longer be the case. Those in the other place were absolutely right to say that what the Government are trying to do is shameful. This House should throw it out.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle of time-limiting. He says that a year is too short a time, and he is against arbitrary time limits. Will he tell the House the basis on which he alighted on two years, rather than three, four of five?

[Stephen Timms]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendment, he will see that it refers to a period of “at least 730” days. That was proposed precisely because there is as yet no evidence—certainly not from the Department—about what the right period should be. We can be absolutely sure, however, that it should not be less than two years, for all the reasons that I have just outlined.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a heart-rending case, but will he tell us what assessment he has made of the extra cost of moving to a two-year limit?

[Stephen Timms]

Those figures were quoted extensively in our debate. Our view is simply this: we should not be taking large sums of money from people who are recovering from cancer or from a stroke, and who have been told throughout their lives that if they paid into the national insurance system, they would be able to get help when they needed it. That pledge needs to be honoured, even by this Government.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 15 and the question of the youth passport. It is astonishing that the spiteful policy towards disabled young people remained in the Bill for so long. It is even more astonishing to see the Minister now trying to ram it back in today, after the other place took it out. The current principle is that people who have been disabled since birth or childhood should be passported on to a contributory benefit. In Committee, the Minister described the principle as an “oddity”, but it has been well established since the 1970s and backed by Tory Ministers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Only now are this Government trying to scrap it. It provides an independent income for severely disabled people whose disability started before they had a chance to work. The Minister wants to deny them that. The principle that young people who are disabled from birth ought to be able to rely on a secure independent income might seem odd to him; to most people, it is simply right.

The Government’s impact assessment justifies this change, disgracefully, on the basis of simplifying the system.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The change will affect not only those who have had a disability since birth or childhood. A young person who has worked for only six months before having a major accident could also lose out and never have the chance to have an independent income-replacement benefit at any time in their life.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The impact assessment states that the provision

“puts those previously eligible for ESA ‘youth’ on an equal footing with others who have to satisfy the relevant National Insurance conditions before they qualify for contributory ESA, which will create a simpler system”.

It will not put them on an equal footing. They have been unable to work since before they had a chance to work, or at least to build up two years of contributions, as my hon. Friend points out. They have had no chance to build up their contributions, and they are therefore at a disadvantage, compared with everybody else. Attempting to justify the proposal—in frankly Orwellian terms—as a simplification really takes the biscuit. We are talking about a small group—15,000 people—who have never had a chance to build up a contribution record. It is right that they should be treated differently. A little complexity is necessary for fairness.

It is worth looking at how much money the Government will save by overturning this amendment. It involves a fair amount of contributory ESA —Ministers in the other place said £70 million. However, many of those young people—the Minister said it would be 90%—will be entitled to income-related benefit if they lose their contributory benefit. Furthermore, the amendment from the other place is very narrow. It applies only to the support group—that is, those who the Government accept should be protected from ESA time-limiting. The net annual saving from this spiteful cut will be about a quarter of the amount that the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will hand out in executive bonuses this year. It will be less than £10 million a year.

[Mr Frank Field]

When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) asked a question about a 20-year-old living at home, we did not get an answer. I was just wondering whether my right hon. Friend was trying to find out the answer by osmosis. At what point will disabled young people qualify in their own right for means-tested support, as opposed to having a household means test applied to them?

[Stephen Timms]

I also noted that the Minister did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South the assurance that she was seeking. My understanding is that any other income in the household, from any source, contributes to the household income, and the benefit for the disabled young person is therefore removed, pound for pound. My hon. Friend was seeking an assurance that some other provision would be put in place to safeguard the young person, but the Minister was unable to give her such an assurance, because I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. No such provision appears in the Bill at the moment.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measure will have an impact on young people’s ability to form relationships? Having to depend on the income of a potential partner will have a great impact on their lives.

[Stephen Timms]

That is a particularly important point. If a person decides to marry someone who has an income, they will lose all their own income. The independence that the system has provided for 40 years is now being taken away.

[Ian Paisley]

The social impact of the proposals concerns me greatly. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly characterised them as “spiteful”. It is at the point when a long-term severely disabled person is in transition from their teenage years to adulthood that their parents or family unit require additional support. Cutting that support will hit the family, and the young person, really hard, socially.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The young person will be robbed of their independence.

[Chris Grayling]

If someone is living independently, they will be entitled to income-based ESA.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was talking about young people who are living with their parents, who might have a little bit of income or savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South was seeking an assurance on that point, and if the Minister were able to give her that assurance, it would be most welcome.

[Chris Grayling]

Once someone becomes an adult, they count as living independently.

[Stephen Timms]

Can the Minister tell us at what age a person becomes an adult?

[Chris Grayling]

When their child benefit stops.

[Mr Frank Field]

It is at 19.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is prompting the Minister with the answer. We will look carefully at the detail of the proposals. Presumably, they are going to appear in regulations; they are certainly not in the Bill. It is helpful that the Minister has told us that, however.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Concerns have been expressed to me by parents who have tried to save for their disabled children. They have put money aside for them, but the proposals will affect them because the money will be in their children’s names.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister has told us that someone who receives an inheritance should lose all their support from the state. Those could be similar circumstances to those that the hon. Lady has just mentioned.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the answer that the Minister has just given is quite astounding? He seemed to suggest that, in order to qualify for independent benefit, a disabled young person would have to leave the family home, where they have the support and facilities that they need, despite all the additional costs that that would entail. That would end up being even more costly.

[Stephen Timms]

To be fair to the Ministers, I think that there is some confusion on the Front Bench over the position on this. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who chairs the Select Committee, to give the House a straightforward assurance. He failed to do so—

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

Perhaps he is going to have another go.

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be absolutely clear: when someone leaves child benefit—which can be at the age of 18 or 19, depending on their circumstances—they are deemed to be an independent adult. The only issue around the savings rule comes in if they actually hold and own the money themselves. So, if someone gets a £1 million inheritance, they will not carry on getting benefits. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not disagree with that principle.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister talks about people getting £1 million, but people who have £16,000 will get absolutely nothing. That is the system that he is putting in place, and I am not surprised that he is ashamed of it.

[Mr Nuttall]

As a matter of general principle, does the shadow Minister agree that there has to be a rule about the amount of capital that people hold? Should not a cut-off apply? It was the Labour Government’s rule: there has to be a cut-off.

[Stephen Timms]

We are being taken into a slightly broader argument, but I will answer the point directly. The capital limit has always been a feature of means-tested out-of-work benefits. It was never a feature of the tax credit system because the previous Government wanted to encourage people in work to save. That incentive to save is being destroyed by the application of this capital limit—exactly the same capital limit—in future to people in work as well as out of work. That is another terrible feature of this Bill.

13:30

[Dame Anne Begg]

What has just been illustrated is the assumption that people are out of work in order to get benefit. We know—well, we hope, unless the Government are proposing to change the new personal independence payment—that there will be no capital rules, so someone with a million pound inheritance will, if they qualify and meet the criteria, continue to get benefit. That has always been in our system.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of people who have a million pounds can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[Mr Frank Field]

Are not Government Members mistaken on this? We are talking about the existing rules, which encourage parents to put away money—they might have found it difficult to do so—for an endowment for a very disabled child. They will now find that their carefulness in not playing the system but trying to seek independence for their offspring will be penalised by the rules, which they could never have foreseen.

[Stephen Timms]

That is absolutely right; that is how the Government are changing the system. Disabled young people, in recognition of their particular circumstances, have been assured since the 1970s—under Governments of both parties—of an independent income from the state. This Government are taking it away from them. As a result of this change, they will lose that security in exchange for very little saving at all to the Exchequer. The Child Poverty Action Group points out that the current arrangement helps

“young disabled people who may be vulnerable to forming unsuitable relationships, or may avoid forming a suitable relationship due to fears about losing an independent income”,

as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) correctly said. The current arrangements give the chance of a more secure and independent life to people who would, through absolutely no fault of their own, find that very difficult otherwise. At less than £10 million a year, that is a price worth paying for the independence of severely disabled young people. I urge the House to reject the Government motion.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am pleased to welcome the vast bulk of what the Government are doing. It is a pleasure to hear that people are not being defined by their condition and are not being forced to have decisions taken about them on the basis of a label or a particular condition. That is why, as I say, I strongly welcome much of what the Government are doing.

I would, however, like to reflect briefly on amendment 23, which relates to the youth passport. It is not that I particularly disagree with what the Government are doing, but I wish to focus on a few questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about how we intend to ensure that these young people are given, as it says in the impact assessment, the “equal footing” that the Government rightly want them to have.

My primary concern is that these young people have not been able to acquire national insurance contributions because they are severely disabled. I would welcome some clarity about the expectation that they will accrue these contributions and be protected in the welfare system at the point at which they become an adult. Despite reading the impact assessment and all the debates in the House of Lords and listening carefully to what has been said today, I am still not entirely clear how that will be achieved.

[Chris Grayling]

Before my hon. Friend moves on and in case I do not have a chance to respond at the end of the debate, I would like to draw his and the House’s attention to the fact that people who leave contributory ESA will still be able to accrue national insurance credits in the same way as happens today for those who are not on contributory JSA. Ultimately, they will still have the same pension entitlement they would have done had they been in work.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the comments pre-empted by what was said by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and perhaps go beyond the implementation of this system to look at the wider impact on the ability of individuals to form independent relationships.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has recognised, we are talking largely about the impact on human behaviour. I am concerned—it is possibly a mistaken fear—that if people were to enter into a relationship and cease to be an independent household, they might become dependent on their partner’s income. That could be a deterrent to forming a meaningful relationship. I may be a simple Member of Parliament who fails to understand this complex issue, but the all-party parliamentary group for young disabled people, which I chair, has asked me expressly to raise this issue, which is at the heart of its concerns about this amendment. I would welcome some clarification of how the Government think people will behave in real life as opposed to in the benefit system.

I shall not detain the House any longer. The Government have my full support on these amendments, but I would like more clarity about how they view their implementation.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Let me say from the outset that I support the Lords amendments and do not agree with the Government’s motion to disagree. I shall talk about two main aspects: one is the time limitation and the second is the can of worms that I have managed to open this afternoon about the youth rate.

The time limit is unfair to people who have worked all their lives, done the right thing and thought that part of their payment of national insurance would provide them with some kind of insurance scheme so that if an unfortunate accident or ill health befell them, they would qualify for an income replacement benefit—in this case, employment support allowance—regardless of their actual income. People believed that it would work like any other insurance policy and would pay out if the unfortunate happened. The Government are breaking that link between the concept of an insurance policy and how much and for how long it will pay.

People suffering from cancer are often used as an example of a group that will fall into the work-related activity category of ESA: cancer patients will often not be well enough to go back to work within the year. Other groups of people have fluctuating conditions and some have slowly progressive neurological conditions. From everything the Minister said today, the assumption seems to be that people in the work-related activity group will move towards work, but some will be on the opposite journey, moving further and further away from work as their condition deteriorates.

Because we assess people not on their condition but on how their condition affects them when they go through the assessment, someone with multiple sclerosis or in the early stages of Huntington’s disease might not qualify for the ESA group, might end up in the WRA group and might qualify only some time in the future. They are likely to be a group that has already been in work and will have fallen out of work precisely because they have been diagnosed with these conditions. Although many of us—and probably those people, too—want to be in work, we live in the real world where employers will often not take the risk of employing someone with that type of condition, especially if the person has already lost one job precisely because of it.

I think the time limit is arbitrary and unfair, and I wish the Government would look at it again. The two-year provision is arbitrary as well—[Interruption.] In fact, I do not agree with time-limited provisions at all, but this is the best we have; it is twice as good as the Government’s proposal. [Interruption.] I am sorry that some Conservative Members at the back of the Chamber find this so funny. The people with Parkinson’s disease and MS do not find it funny. It is their lives that are being undermined, and it is they who will not have an independent income. It is my constituents—and, indeed, those of Government Members sitting at the back of the Chamber—who, because they have saved all their lives, will not qualify for income-related ESA and will suffer as a result. They will lose their independent incomes, and their household incomes, although they may have been cataclysmically affected, may still be too high for them to qualify for income support. Despite what those Government Members sitting at the back may think, income support levels are very low, and the actual level of income on which such households will have to live will therefore not be what they may have expected.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend may recall that, in an intervention on the Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pledged his support to the Government on the basis that, in rejecting the Lords amendments, they were removing from the system people who had been abusing it as a “lifestyle choice”. The people we are discussing are people who are suffering from life-impacting conditions such as cancer, Parkinson’s and AIDS, or young people who have had disabilities since their birth or childhood. Where does the issue of lifestyle choices come in for those people?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is not a lifestyle choice to be diagnosed with a progressive, debilitating condition. It is hard. It is difficult. Individuals in that position face enough prejudice in society already, probably from the employers who told them that they could no longer do their jobs. That is why they need to apply for and claim benefit: because they have already faced that prejudice, which the Government may be making even worse. It is hard for those people, and we are making it harder.

[Sammy Wilson]

To a certain extent I agree with what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about lifestyle choices, but surely, in this instance, people who have decided to save, make provision and do the right thing are being penalised for making a lifestyle choice. It is the kind of lifestyle choice of which I imagine the hon. Gentleman would approve, but the measures that we are discussing will punish people for making what he and many other Members would presumably describe as a good lifestyle choice.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. As I said earlier, the people who will be punished most are those who have done the right thing. They are the ones who have been in work, the ones who have saved, and the ones who have partners who have been in work and remain in work. It would be much easier for their partners to drop out of work as well, because they and their partners would then, as a household, qualify for the benefit. That would probably be the wrong thing to do from the point of view of the family, but given such a benefits system—I was going to say “a benefits system that would make them better off”, but it might not do that—it will become a logical choice for a working partner in those circumstances to give up work. Although it would probably be wrong, it would be logical.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept the principle of means-testing? That is my first question. If so, what level would she set?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I do accept the principle of means-testing, but I am not sure why that is relevant.

[Gordon Henderson]

rose—

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman sit down while I answer his question? The whole point of contributory ESA is that it is based on national insurance contributions. These are people who may have worked for 30 or 40 years, paying into what they thought was an insurance scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman, if he has insurance, expect the insurers not to pay out at the point at which the money is due to be paid?

[Gordon Henderson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to me again. I have been made redundant twice in my life, and on both occasions, because I had capital, I was not entitled to any employment relief. I was given no benefits at all, because I had about £20,000 in the bank, and although I had been paying into the system since I was 16, I had to accept that.

[Hon. Members]

What was your illness?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I think—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) has asked a question, Dame Anne Begg wants to answer it, and I am sure that other hon. Members would love to hear the answer as well. They may wish to intervene later.

13:45

[Dame Anne Begg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention illustrates some of the confusion that exists. Some Members seem to believe that losing a job because of ill health is exactly the same as losing a job by being made redundant, but it is not. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the chance of obtaining another job is far, far higher for someone who has been made redundant than for someone who has lost his job because he has received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, or because he has had a major road accident which means that he is now dependent on a wheelchair to survive. Those conditions are different, and they should therefore be treated differently in the national insurance and, indeed, the benefits system.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that any responsible policy must be fully costed? If so, will she answer the question that the shadow Minister failed to answer, and tell us how much it would cost for the one-year period to be increased to two years, as the amendment proposes?

[Dame Anne Begg]

At present, those on incapacity benefit—the existing benefit, which the Government are to replace—who have made the necessary national insurance contributions will keep that benefit until they return to work. Is the hon. Gentleman saying the costing should be done on any other basis? Obviously, the reason the Government are introducing the time limit is to save money: there can be no other reason, as the hon. Gentleman has effectively admitted. This is the result of a money-saving decision by the Government. It is not about being fair; it is about saving money to deal with the debt and the deficit, which were not caused by the people—and their partners, wives and husbands—who have tried throughout their lives to do the right thing.

I am conscious of the time, but I now want to say something about the youth rate. When I intervened on the Minister, I was genuinely trying to obtain some clarification, but I have ended up even more confused than before about how the youth rate will work and which groups of young people will no longer receive an independent—that word is important—income replacement benefit. They may receive non-means-tested benefits and, for instance, disability living allowance or the new personal independence payment, but they will not have any income.

Let me give an example of someone I think will be caught by that, someone who came to my constituency office a number of years ago. He was a young lad of 20 who had been in work for six months when he was diagnosed with a virulent condition. I cannot remember what it was, but it meant that he would be unlikely to work again, and indeed his condition was going to deteriorate. This young man lived with his girlfriend, who earned about £15,000 or £16,000 a year, just over the income support level. Under the measures proposed by the Government, he would not qualify for any income at all. He would be wholly dependent on his girlfriend, and the household income would consist only of her income. That does not strike me as right, and it does not strike me as fair. I should be grateful if, before we vote on the amendment, the Minister would tell us exactly which group of people will lose out as a result of the abolition of the contributory youth rate.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that that young man would probably qualify for disability living allowance? He would therefore have some income, even if he did not receive means-tested ESA.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The household might possibly get housing benefit, but that goes on paying the rent. The young man might get disability living allowance, but that is paid because he has extra expenses due to his disability. What he does not have is an income. He has no money to go to the pub for a pint, to buy clothes, or to do anything that the rest of us, disabled or not, take for granted. He has no independent income. It is totally different if someone is out of work and unemployed. I am disappointed that those on the Government Benches cannot see that distinction, and cannot see that those who are long-term ill or disabled, and who have no prospect of improving their financial circumstances themselves because of the level of their disability, are being penalised by the Government. That is partly why I most certainly will support the Lords amendments this afternoon, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do so, too.

[Jenny Willott]

Returning to the issue of the time-limited employment and support allowance, there is real concern about an arbitrary time limit. As was kindly pointed out by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), at a party conference the Liberal Democrats showed their concern by passing a motion against arbitrary time limits. However, the amendment from the Lords and the Government’s original proposal both set arbitrary time limits; it is just that one is longer than the other. Neither of the options in front of us would get rid of an arbitrary time limit, as a number of Members have highlighted.

One way to make the system less arbitrary is to ensure that people are in the right category in the first place, with those in the greatest need in the support group, so that they are not affected by a time limit. My colleagues and I have looked long and hard at the issue, and the important thing is to get the assessment right in the first place and make sure that people are in the right category, as those in the support group are exempt from the time limit. We need to make sure that people who need long-term, indefinite support are in the support group and can get that. That is a more effective way to protect those who need the most help than changing one arbitrary time limit for another.

[Dr Whiteford]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about getting the test right in the first place, but is she confident that the work capability assessment is working as it should?

[Jenny Willott]

I was going to come on to that. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will hopefully answer her question.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making many interesting points. Does she agree that when a person has a degenerative illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, their condition may change during any finite period, so it is important to emphasise that people can be reassessed and put into the support group if their condition deteriorates?

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Lady is right, and many conditions get worse at varying rates—very slowly for some people, and very quickly for others. It is important to make sure that people get the benefit that they should, and that the assessment is right, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Willott]

I will make some progress, because I have hardly said anything yet, and I am being intervened on left, right, and centre.

The Harrington process is critical to getting the assessment right. I welcome the work that has been done looking specifically at cancer patients, which will ensure that the vast majority go into the support group. That is the right way forward. I also welcome the fact that Professor Harrington is looking at how we assess chronic pain and fatigue, because in many chronic, long-term conditions—particularly fluctuating conditions—those are the elements that cause people most difficulty in thinking about returning to work, and the elements that, at the moment, the work capability assessment is not very good at identifying and reflecting. I really hope that Ministers will implement whatever recommendations Professor Harrington makes on those issues; on past experience, his recommendations have been sensible and have made a significant difference to the assessment.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, there is evidence that the system is improving. I looked earlier today at the latest figures on the outcome of the work capability assessments, which I found quite reassuring when it comes to the Bill. We have to treat the figures with caution, but they show that initially, following the work capability assessment, more people are going into the support group than the work-related activity group. That is a crucial point. If we are getting the assessment right, and more people are going into the support group in the first place, the time-limit for people in the work-related activity group becomes less of an issue, because the people who need the most care are getting support indefinitely.

[Dr Whiteford]

My concern remains that far too many people are having to appeal against their work capability assessment result, and those appeals are overturning the original decision, so the system really is not working as well as it should.

[Jenny Willott]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and the issue has been raised over a number of years by those on both sides of the House.

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that we put it on record for the House once again that, possibly with a tiny number of exceptions, no appeals have yet been completed following the introduction of the Harrington reforms. Every appeal that has been discussed up to now took place under the system that we inherited, rather than since we changed the system last summer.

[Jenny Willott]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that when the figures flow through on appeals that have taken place under the new system, we see a reduction in the number of decisions overturned, and in the number of people who go to appeal. That would suggest that the assessment was working properly.

If we make sure that the assessment works properly, it will reduce the arbitrariness of the timetable, but as the Minister mentioned in an intervention on the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Ham, it is important that we recognise that many people will receive six months’ statutory sick pay before they go on to the ESA, so they will be receiving benefits for 18 months. It is important that the Government continue the work that is being done to look at ensuring that employers work with staff when they become disabled or fall sick, and do not immediately push them on to ESA. Instead, employees should get the support that they need, possibly to stay in work over an extended period, and get their full entitlement to statutory sick pay and ESA, so that they get the full 18 months’ support to which many of them will be entitled.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady set out the fact that there was objection at her party conference to an arbitrary time limit. Does she accept the case for setting the limit, whatever it should be, in regulations instead of in the Bill? Putting it in the Bill means that it will take another Act of Parliament to change it in future.

[Jenny Willott]

There needs to be some stability, so that people know what to expect. One of the problems with putting that type of provision in regulations is that it becomes very difficult for people to know what they can expect. That creates uncertainty, which makes it more difficult for people to cope.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about people with deteriorating conditions, I welcome the concession that the Government made in the Lords. It is important that people with MS, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and so on get ongoing support when they really need it. That is definitely a step forward.

I still have some concerns about work incentives and the means test. A person does not get means-tested ESA if their partner has a low level of income. If the partner worked 24 hours a week on the minimum wage, that would be a household income of £145 a week. However, as people would get increased housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on, the drop in income for that household when the sick or disabled person no longer received ESA would be significantly less than the scare stories are leading people to believe. I also appreciate that when universal credit is introduced, that will be far less of an issue, because the income disregard for households in which there is someone with a disability will be set much higher, at £140 a week. In the future, under universal credit, a household with an income of £140 a week will get the whole of their income and the full universal credit on top of that, so this is mainly an issue for the 18 months between the introduction of the policy that we are discussing and the introduction of the universal credit in October 2013.

I would be grateful if the Minister, if he gets the chance to sum up at the end of the debate, would say whether anything can be done to bridge that gap. For example, we could look at making sure that people in that category are among the first to be moved on to universal credit, so that we can ensure that the period in which they lose out on income is as short as possible. In addition, the DWP impact assessment says that it is likely to cost £30 million in increased benefit payments as the partners of those affected leave work. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether there is anything that could be done to reduce that amount of money by considering the effect on such households.

13:59

Finally, the debate has been getting quite heated on the subject of young disabled people. I understand that there is a lot of concern about this group, because they are particularly vulnerable, but there has been a good deal of rhetoric—not least today—about the Government taking away those individuals’ whole income. We have heard suggestions that people will not get anything at all, but it has been made clear today that the means test will not take into account parents’ income once the disabled or sick young person reaches the age of 18 or 19. Despite the best efforts of those on the Opposition Front Bench to muddy the waters, it is quite clear that the means test will only take into account that individual’s circumstances. The parents’ savings and income will not be taken into account and that is why nine out of 10 of the people affected will still receive income-related ESA. That is a crucial message for people who are concerned about this move. The vast majority of people will not lose their benefits, despite the negative messages we have heard, which are creating fear that is unnecessary and worrying.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Willott]

I will not give way any more, because quite a number of people want to speak and we have only half an hour left.

There are still issues about the time limiting of ESA, although many of them will be resolved when the universal credit is introduced. I believe that the Government have been making good progress on improving the assessment process, which is critical to making the system work. I hope that the Minister gets the opportunity—even if only through interventions—to respond positively to some of the points that I have raised.

[Mr Winnick]

This is indeed a grubby and obnoxious measure, but I have no doubt that at 2.30 pm, the Government will carry the day. I sat on the Government Benches for 13 years, and in the unlikely event that my Government had introduced such a measure, I would not have hesitated to vote against it, as I did on other motions on one or two occasions—although not many. I would not have expected my Government to propose such a measure, and I am pleased that we are opposing it. In essence, we are debating a 12-month limit—if the Lords amendments are defeated, as I expect they will be—for those with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses in the work-related activity group of the employment and support allowance. After 12 months, most of them will be means-tested. Some Government Members will ask why such a means tests should not be imposed, but let us be clear, so that when hon. Members vote in half an hour they know what they are voting on: a claimant in the category that I have mentioned whose partner works for more than 24 hours or earns £149 weekly—£149, not £249 or £549—could lose all their benefit. I wonder how many Government Members, who seem so keen on the proposal, could justify that in their constituencies. I certainly could not and would not wish to try.

As has been stated, Macmillan Cancer Support believes that 7,000 cancer patients will be adversely affected by the proposal. The Government’s own figures show that 94% of people with cancer who are placed in the group that I have mentioned need ESA for longer than 12 months. That is not disputed—if it is, the Minister will intervene. I repeat: the Government’s own statistics show that 94% of such people require that support for longer than 12 months.

This is not just about cancer patients. Let me quote a piece written by someone who has a rare bone disease. He is 50 years old and has spent more than three years in hospitals, trying to recover. He is not in a position to take employment, and that is not disputed. He says that he paid national insurance contributions all his life, until his illness, and he gets £89 a week through ESA. He writes that it

“isn’t a big sum…but it makes a huge difference for me. Among other everyday essentials it pays for the heating to keep me warm during the long and often painful days at home while my partner is out at work.”

Not an extravagant sum, is it? We are not being over-indulgent to someone who worked until he had that terrible disease and wants to try to make the best of his life in such circumstances. He says—[Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening—he smiles.

[Chris Grayling]

If I understand correctly, the hon. Gentleman has just described the very sad case of someone who will not be able to work again and would therefore certainly be placed in the support group and would not be affected by the measures. I am not sure that I understand the point being made.

[Mr Winnick]

He may well work again, but not at this moment. He writes that when the Welfare Reform Bill becomes law in April he, and others, such as cancer sufferers, people with psychiatric problems and those with other life-threatening illnesses will have their benefits “stripped” from them once 12 months is up. If his partner earns the sum I have mentioned of as little as £149 a week and if they have modest savings, he will receive nothing at all once he is means-tested. If that case is an illustration of the Government’s intentions, there is all the more reason for a reluctance to support the measures and a recognition of what the House of Lords has tried to do.

As I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and to the Liberal Democrat Minister of State, who intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I asked myself whether, if they were in opposition, they would have the slightest hesitation in upholding the decision of the Lords by majority vote. The answer is pretty obvious. To their credit, a number of Liberal Democrats in the Lords decided to vote against the Government, and Liberal Democrat MPs would, in opposition, have voted in the same Lobby as us at half-past 2. It is unfortunate that they are willing to sacrifice their principles so flagrantly as a result of being in the coalition.

Let me end on a quote:

“People who are sick, who are vulnerable…I want you to know we will always look after you. That’s the sign of a civilized society and it’s what I believe.”

That was the Prime Minister at his party conference. What he is now doing with his colleagues and with the support of the Liberal Democrats is hitting out at the most vulnerable people in our society—cancer patients and the rest, including the man I mentioned. Those are the people who will be penalised financially and harmed in so many ways as a result of what the Government are doing. That is a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said about protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few Members wish to speak, so may I ask for short speeches? That will mean that we can get everybody in and all the views will be on the record.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), although I do not agree with him on many occasions. I do not agree with him today either, except on one thing—the Government will get this measure through today, and that is because they are doing absolutely the right thing. One thing that I heard time and again from my constituents in the last election campaign was that they were sick and tired of the number of people taking a lifestyle choice to live a life on benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has mentioned.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Labour party, which now has this synthetic anger about the proposals for means-testing, was the party that when in government—the hon. Member for Walsall North himself said that he supported them more often than not—extended means-testing more than any other Government in history?

[Mr Nuttall]

Absolutely. We have heard a lot about this means-testing this afternoon. We have heard that the system is insurance-based, which it is, but with any insurance policy there are terms and conditions. In this case, the means test is just shorthand for the terms and conditions of the policy.

[Sheila Gilmore]

What I find so hard to understand in the argument the hon. Gentleman is presenting is that the very people he might be condemning—people who have not worked and have not had savings—will continue to get benefit. The people who are being damaged by this policy are those who have saved, who are working and who have tried hard.

[Mr Nuttall]

We must have rules of policy in an insurance system. The Labour party accepted that when it was in government and the hard-working families in my constituency, many of whom have no savings at all, or less than £1,000 in savings, will ask why their taxes should go towards paying benefits to people who have far more in savings than they have. That is a perfectly logical and sensible view.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If people thought about this they would realise that if they had been saving and making that effort—and we are not necessarily talking about huge amounts because the measures would start to affect people to some degree at £6,000—they would find the measures unfair.

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not agree. We have to ask why people save. They save for a rainy day. They save in case they lose their job or have an illness. The changes will still mean that the most needy in our society will be looked after. There will still be a safety net that will help those who most need help in our society.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman be advising his constituents to take out private insurance to protect against unemployment or ill health? After all, he is supporting the limiting of the state’s role in that respect.

[Mr Nuttall]

Some constituents might choose to do that, but that is a matter for them. I am not going to recommend whether that is the right or wrong thing to do because it is a decision they have to take for themselves. It is about personal responsibility. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that at a time when the welfare bill is spiralling out of control and this country has run out of money—we are essentially bankrupt; we are having to borrow money every single day to pay our way—it is essential that we bring the welfare benefits bill under control. It is only by taking tough decisions that that will ever be done.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Like me, my hon. Friend might not be surprised that the Opposition are ignoring the effect of universal credit. Does he accept that many of the families in the margins who are affected badly by means-testing will benefit from universal credit?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With universal credit, we seek to sweep away some of the complexities of the welfare system that inevitably lead to confusion and the possibility for people to make errors—sometimes deliberately.

I am very conscious that many other speakers want to get in and I am sure that we want to hear the Minister’s reply. Let me say again that I want to speak up for the hard-working families in my constituency and the vast number of my constituents who think the Government are doing absolutely the right thing on welfare. I urge everyone to back these moves today.

14:15

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

If anyone ever had any doubt about the same old Tories and the nasty party, they have just seen an absolutely fine example of it. I am not surprised by the views of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) either, bearing in mind that he said that disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage—well done!

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

On the issue at hand, one in three of us—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to give way. Having three people shouting at once is not the way to get anyone to give way.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One in three of us suffers from cancer at any one time. I am very unfortunate, as my parents and my wife’s parents all died at a relatively young age.

[Philip Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make an accusation that five national newspapers apologised for making? Is it in order for him to make the same accusation and then not give way to allow me to correct him? Those five newspapers at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that they had made a mistake.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but you have put the point on the record which I think is what you wished to do.

[Ian Lavery]

As I was saying, one in three of us—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I will start again. One in three of us, sadly, comes into contact with cancer during our lifetime. It is a very difficult situation. I lost both my parents, and my wife lost both of hers, so I understand how sufferers and their relatives and friends are affected. It is not just the disease that has an effect—there is also the mental and physical stress and traumatisation for people who suffer from diseases such as cancer and stroke.

Some of the people who suffer from cancer might not see two years—they might not have a vision of the next two years on this earth—but the Government propose to cut benefits from those people at that time in their lives. It is absolutely dreadful that in 2012 we have a Government who are even considering such heinous acts against the most vulnerable. When the Secretary of State, who has left the Chamber, discusses these issues on television and in the media he seems to relish the fact that benefits will be cut. He seems to have a sense of contentment or self-satisfaction—almost an arrogance beyond belief—when he states clearly that benefits will be cut. To say the very least, it is gut-wrenching.

We as politicians across the board should be looking to defend people whose voices are mostly unheard. They elected us into our positions, and they depend on us. The Government must consider an extension to ESA for two years, and we must exempt those receiving cancer treatments from any time limit whatever. It is breathtaking and incomprehensible that benefits are being cut from people at that critical point in their lives, when some see the possibility that they will not live much longer.

There are regional differences as well, regarding the availability of cancer treatments, for example. The north-east fares very poorly in that. We also have the highest incidence of newly diagnosed cancers, and I am certainly not happy with the cutting of benefits in any way, shape or form to people suffering from cancers, strokes and all those debilitating diseases.

In conclusion, we need to give such people a break—give them a chance and some understanding. You can nod your head all you wish.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not concerned with the facts at all. Cancer does not respect political boundaries. Do you not think that colleagues on this side of the House have suffered in the same way that you have? Such a person as you have described would clearly be in the support group.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Follow the debate; you should know what you are voting for!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need Front Benchers to join in as well. We have enough with the Back Benchers.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am the sort of person who would not, in any event, agree to cuts for people on benefits who were suffering from debilitating or life-threatening diseases. That is the type of person I am. If you want to vote for that—my apologies. If it is your intention to vote for that, you do it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are going to go through the Chair and we cannot use “you”. We know better now. Okay, Mr Ian Lavery.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr McCann]

Will my hon. Friend give me some clarification to get the facts straight? If someone who has worked all their life and paid contributions to the system tragically contracts cancer, after one year will their ESA contributions-based benefit stop?

[Ian Lavery]

That is certainly the intention of the Government’s proposal, and it is absolutely outrageous.

To conclude, bearing in mind the time, I want to say that it is about time that we gave some dignity to the people we have mentioned—

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that the House understands the facts. Somebody who is diagnosed with cancer who goes through chemotherapy will spend an extended period in the support group, so they will not lose benefits after 12 months. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, today, there are more cancer patients receiving unconditional ongoing support in the support group than under the previous Government?

[Ian Lavery]

What I will not accept is that everyone suffering from cancer will be in the work group. That is not the case. They might be in for a short time or a prolonged period, but they are not guaranteed to be in there all the time. That means their benefits will be cut.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that a Government who have been saying that disabled people should not be condemned to worklessness and should be encouraged to work seem to be turning on a pin to argue that everything will be all right because all those people will be in the support group?

[Ian Lavery]

If that was the case, there would not be a problem with the legislation. Everybody would get what they were due and there would not be the apparent cut.

For the third time, I shall try to conclude. We must give dignity to those people, who are in most need, and stop the war against those in need.

[Dr Whiteford]

I will try to keep my comments brief, given the time pressure on us.

The Lords has done us a big service by highlighting the impact and implications of these measures for sick and disabled people. The 12-month limit to contributory ESA is arbitrary. Regardless of the people in the support group, the measure will affect people who are adapting to radical and serious changes in their health, income and life. They might be suffering from life-limiting conditions, long-term disability or fluctuating conditions. They might be people who have been used to living on an average income, but will have to get used to living on a very low income. Those adaptations take time; getting better takes time. Some people will take less than 12 months, some considerably more. Macmillan thinks that 94% will need support in the work-related activity group for more than 12 months. In that respect, while I do not accept the principle of an arbitrary time limit, I suspect that two years would catch more of those people and see them getting the support they need.

Fundamentally, these measures will upset the contract that we all like to think we have when we pay our national insurance contributions—that there will be some limited safety net for us if we are unfortunate enough to become sick or disabled. That could happen to any one of us in this Chamber, at any time. We do not know when we are going to have an accident or develop a serious illness, so not only cancer is involved, although we know that people across society are affected by it. Other conditions are just as serious, and the same principles apply.

On insecurity, I should draw an analogy with what happened when banks tried to prey on people’s insecurities about the future by asking them to take on insurance for loans they had taken out. The banks have had to pay out seven-figure sums in compensation to people who were mis-sold insurance policies. I hope that that does not happen again as people think, “If I get a serious illness, there will not be support for me.” I am worried that there will be an opportunity for unscrupulous selling of insurance policies to vulnerable people at the most vulnerable times in their lives.

I am concerned about the knock-on impact of the proposals on carers too. In my constituency, I have seen families working longer hours, often in low-paid jobs, just to provide financially for family members who are no longer able to work, but who once were. There is particular concern around young people; that was mentioned earlier in the debate, but it has not been focused on so much. Parents of disabled young adults have often saved throughout their lives as they are concerned about what will happen when they are no longer able to look after their children. They have saved for their children to ensure that they have independent means and a bit of money behind them for when they are adult and their parents are no longer in a position to provide.

It would be unfortunate if the capital of those young people were eroded at a time when they still had some support from their parents. They might be prevented from having an independent old age and might be made more dependent on the state than they would otherwise be. That is about the dignity of young disabled people as much as anything.

I urge the Government to consider the fact that ESA needs to be assessed on the basis of medical need, not an arbitrary time limit. People should get the support they need according to their health, not some arbitrary category that they may or may not fit into.

[Sheila Gilmore]

What we have heard today is that there is a big divide between the parties on our views of what the welfare state is for. The Minister opened the debate by saying that the welfare state is a safety net, by which he meant a safety net only on financial grounds; those who are very poor get help, but those who are not do not. That is not how I see it. The welfare state was set up to help us through the times when we are in difficulties, including illness and poor health. It is the social security that gives us the confidence that we will be provided for when we need it. This distinction clearly illustrates the divide between the parties.

It was very odd to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) argue that this matter was somehow not as important as the Opposition think it is because people will end up in the support group. That goes against everything that many disability organisations are saying, which is that people who have an illness or a disability do want to get back to work. Perhaps they are not quite ready to go back to work within a year, but they do want to work. Parking people in the support group is a very odd solution indeed, because we will end up going back to the situation that the Government have so heavily criticised. Where people have saved, they should have that opportunity. If someone falls ill at that age, they will already have incurred considerable financial losses and no doubt bitten into their savings. We are talking not about welfare, but about people who will start to lose benefits when they have savings of over £6,000 a year.

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that people’s circumstances change, but does she not agree that they can go for a reassessment?

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the things that it would be interesting to discuss if we had more time, and it is dreadful that so little time has been given for considering these important matters, is whether someone who has been in the work-related activity group—

14:30

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.

14:30

Division 454

Ayes: 324

---

Conservative: 279
Liberal Democrat: 44

Noes: 265

---

Labour: 237
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Liberal Democrat: 8
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 19.

Lords amendment 19, as amended, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.—(Chris Grayling.)

14:45

Division 455

Ayes: 332

---

Conservative: 283
Liberal Democrat: 48

Noes: 266

---

Labour: 241
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Liberal Democrat: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 17 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.—(Chris Grayling.)

14:58

Division 456

Ayes: 328

---

Conservative: 284
Liberal Democrat: 43

Noes: 265

---

Labour: 242
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Scottish National Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 18 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have received a report from the Tellers in the Division at 10.14 pm yesterday on the Question that new clause 11 be added to the Local Government Finance Bill. The hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) have informed me that the number of No votes was erroneously reported as 309 instead of 299. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The Ayes were 225 and the Noes were 299, so the verdict is not altered.

Clause 93

Benefit cap

[Chris Grayling]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1 and amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Lords amendment 47.

[Chris Grayling]

As Mr Speaker has indicated, Lords amendment 47 impinges on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to it, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. Notwithstanding that, the House has an opportunity to debate the substance of the Lords amendment and I intend to provide the Government’s full rationale for rejecting it. I will also deal with the matters raised in the amendments tabled by the Opposition and explain why they should be rejected as well.

I should like to start by stressing that this debate is not simply about the financial aspects of what we are doing. The fact is that the arguments in favour of a cap are about fairness and about ending a situation in which, for some people, benefit rates are so high that it is not worth working. It is worth my saying that on this issue, the public of this country are overwhelmingly behind us.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on disagreeing with the Lords on this point. He is absolutely right that the public are right behind us, but does he agree with many of my constituents who think that the cap is still being set too high? They find it incredible that anybody could possibly think that it was too low.

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed, and what my hon. Friend says makes all the more extraordinary the flip-flopping position that we have seen from the Opposition in the past few weeks.

A recent YouGov poll showed 76% support for the cap, confirming what all of us will know from our mailbags—that the vast majority of the general public agree with the Government. It is not just the general public as a whole who agree with us, it is Labour voters as well. More than two thirds of them support the principle of a benefit cap. They agree with us that it is wrong to pay people who do not work more in benefits than people earn on average when they do work.

The cap will set a firm upper limit on total benefit entitlement, which for families and lone parents will be equivalent to the average wage for working households. We estimate that to be about £500 a week or £26,000 a year, which is equivalent to gross earnings of £35,000 a year.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I would support entirely what the Minister says but for the fact that in my constituency, rents are so high and housing shortages so great that people do not have a choice. They are obliged to rent properties that entitle them to higher housing benefit, which costs more than the cap. That is the fault of landlords for the rents that they charge, not of the poor people who have no choice and will become homeless under the cap provision.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Lady uses the evocative word “homeless”, but what happens to people in her constituency who are bringing up a family and earning a salary of £35,000 a year? Should they pay for those who are not working to have a home at the taxpayer’s expense?

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

As the Minister will know perfectly well, families in work are entitled to housing benefit, and approximately half of housing benefit recipients in my constituency are working families.

[Chris Grayling]

Of course people on lower incomes can receive housing benefit, but I am not aware that it is paid to families earning £35,000 a year. Surely that is the point. We are setting a dividing line.

15:15

The Opposition say that they agree with the principle of a cap, but they have been an unedifying sight in the past few weeks. Labour has said one thing one day and another the next. Let us take the example of the former Minister and now Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords, Lord McKenzie. On Second Reading, he described the cap as an “arbitrary measure”. On Report, however, he said that he was in favour of a benefit cap. Then bizarrely, no doubt at the instigation of the shadow Secretary of State, he tabled an amendment that was officially judged to be a wrecking amendment. When the vote on it was lost, the Opposition decided that they would support the exclusion of child benefit, and the new clause that they tabled effectively stated that they believed £26,000 a year was not enough.

Of course, if child benefit were excluded from the cap, a household in work would have to earn a gross salary of around £40,000 a year to receive as much as a household with four children would get in benefits.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen that, in recent years, a large number of new jobs in this country have gone to people who have recently arrived. They have not seemed to be attractive to people who have been settled here longer and are unemployed. Does he think that is because it is not worth their while, as benefits are too high relative to pay?

[Chris Grayling]

That is exactly the problem. Many people are taking a hard look at the financial situation and asking, “Why would I return to work?” Surely that has to end.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Although most of us agree that there should be a cap, does the Minister not accept that the situation is different for people living in different parts of the United Kingdom? Costs are different, so common sense says that the cap should be different.

[Chris Grayling]

I was going to come on to the Opposition amendments, but I should make the point that, although this debate is not simply about money, there is no getting away from the fact that their amendments would be costly. They would cut the savings that will be generated by £120 million in 2013-14 and £130 million in subsequent years.

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, and she makes an important point, but it would be altogether more credible if it had not been made at the very last minute. I do not ascribe the blame to her personally, but what we have heard from the Labour party has been quite extraordinary. Its latest effort, in today’s amendments, is to propose a regional benefit cap set by an independent body. The Opposition have tabled that idea and want to discuss it. However, did they table it on Second Reading? No. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which included many of the right hon. and hon. Members who are currently in their places, and I have no recollection of any mention of a regional benefit cap. We then had Report, and again I have no recollection of its being mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State led on Third Reading. I have asked him, and he cannot remember mention of a regional benefit cap. There were then the debates in the House of Lords, in which there was no mention of it. I believe that the first time we heard about it was on the “Today” programme about 10 days ago. Frankly, it is a proposal designed to get the Opposition off the hook.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Can I assume that if the Government accepted the Opposition’s proposal, the £26,000 cap would apply to London and the south-east and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might get the smaller cap that he wants in his constituency?

[Chris Grayling]

That may well be the case, but of course it is not clear. We do not quite know what is in the mind of the Labour party. Is it suggesting—this is not in its amendments—that the cap should still be set at £26,000, in which case there is no reason why Labour Members should not back our measures? Or do they plan a higher cap in some parts of the country and a lower cap in others, accepting that our benefit system should be regionally based? Frankly, I am completely confused, and the House has every reason to be the same.

[Philip Davies]

I, too, have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), but does my right hon. Friend agree that the logical conclusion of a regional cap is regional benefits? She cannot call for a regional cap unless she is also prepared to argue for regional benefits.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that is not a conversation that the shadow Secretary of State will wish to have with his close friends in the trade union movement, who would not approve at all of the idea of beginning to regionalise how the public sector operates.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Minister expressed surprise at the concept of variable caps and benefits. Is he not aware that that concept has applied since the time of Beveridge, in the form of local reference rents, which have existed up to now? Why does he not recognise that regional or area variations in the cap are appropriate, because rents vary enormously from area to area?

[Chris Grayling]

We need to be clear about what has happened. We have been through months of debate. The Labour party has got itself on to an almighty hook on the issue of the benefit cap—it is on the wrong side of the argument—and is desperately trying to wriggle free. The Government are having none of it. We are standing by our proposal. The benefit cap that we propose is the right thing and we will press ahead.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My right hon. Friend is right that in the 26 sittings of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, which I had the pleasure of attending, we did not hear once about the regional benefit cap. Fifty-seven per cent. of those affected live in London. Does the timing of the Opposition proposal have anything to do with the London mayoral elections?

[Chris Grayling]

There might be an element of that—it is difficult to escape that conclusion. The Opposition proposal would have more credence had it not been made at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. We should not take them seriously when they make such ill-thought out, last-minute proposals.

The Government are clear that average earnings are the right way to determine the level of the cap. We do not need the Opposition’s proposed independent body—another quango, I hasten to say—to tell us otherwise. The cap needs to be a single, national one for the policy to make sense. The Government will lay before the House a report on the policy’s impact evaluation after a year of operation.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way one more time as the hon. Lady was on the Committee.

[Ms Buck]

The Minister knows that the Committee extensively discussed the impact of housing costs and their interaction with the cap. If a household loses income through the benefits system through no fault of its own, can it claim legitimately to a local authority to be statutorily homeless, in line with existing homelessness legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry, but I simply do not buy the homelessness argument that Labour Members keep making. We are talking about a cap equivalent to a salary of £35,000 a year. Labour Members were vociferous 12 months ago when the housing benefit cap was introduced, but we have not seen the consequences of which they warned in the terms they used. I simply do not accept that somebody receiving the equivalent of £35,000 a year should be categorised as homeless and unable to find anywhere to live.

Much was said in the other place on the importance of child benefit. Let me make it clear that the introduction of a benefit cap will not result in a single household losing its entitlement to child benefit, which will continue—rightly—to be paid to the current recipient. That important principle will not change.

We are, however, changing another important principle: households on out-of-work benefits should not in future expect to receive unlimited financial support from the state. Like other welfare benefits, child benefit is funded by taxpayers. We therefore believe that it is right for its value to be taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I agree with where the Minister is coming from, but he should not doubt the sincerity of many London Members, particularly those of us who represent inner-London seats. We have deep concerns that some of our local residents will have to move. They will not be made homeless—I agree with him that we should not exaggerate—but they will have to move to other parts of London or the UK.

However, all London Members have constituents who might be forced to move out of central London if they have a second or a third child because of the requirement for more space. Does my right hon. Friend think it perverse that the one category of people who are exempt from that is those on housing benefit?

[Chris Grayling]

That is important. I said at the beginning of the debate that our amendments are not simply about money, but about points of principle. What we are trying to achieve with our reforms is to replicate in our benefits system the realities of the world of work so that people can move quickly from one to the other—we need to do that as closely as we can. Fundamentally, that is what the our proposals are about.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I shall make some progress because we do not have that much time and other hon. Members will want to contribute.

The Government have said that there will and should be some exemptions from the cap, but we believe that work should be the primary way in which households can avoid it. We will therefore exempt households that are entitled to working tax credit. There will be a similar exemption after 2013 for working households on universal credit. Excluding child benefit will only dilute our aim. Being in work—even part-time work—must always pay better than relying on benefits alone.

We have always acknowledged that there will and should be exemptions from the cap among benefit recipients. Those will be households where someone is in receipt of disability living allowance. We will also exempt war widows and widowers. I can announce today that we intend to exempt the small number of households where someone is in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance but not in receipt of DLA.

We have been clear that we are looking at ways in which to ease the transition for families and to provide assistance in hard cases. That is no different from what we did when we introduced the housing benefit cap a year ago. We used the time before the measure came in to work with those affected; we had flexibilities around the start; and we ensured discretionary funding for local authorities to support hard cases. It is our intention to take the same approach with the Bill.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I support the principle of the cap and appreciate the Government’s efforts to understand the difficulties of those hon. Members who represent high-cost housing areas. The house price in my constituency is roughly double the national average.

Can the Minister confirm what our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me in the House on 9 November 2010—that it is “the Government’s policy that” people should not be forced to move

“to a far-off community with which they have no links, and that the intention will always be that”,

if they have to move,

“they should ideally stay in the community or council area where they come from and where they have lived”?—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 166.]

The Secretary of State gave me that assurance. Will the Minister repeat it?

[Chris Grayling]

My understanding is that those were not the words used by the Secretary of State, but I want to reassure my right hon. Friend.

Let me set out in a little more detail how the transitional measures will work. First, those who are affected by the cap will receive and have access to immediate support from Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme, starting from April this year. We know who the families are. We need them to understand how the cap will work and how it will apply to them, because people in receipt of working tax credit will be exempt from the cap. So we have a 12-month period to work intensively with the families concerned to explain what steps they need to take, to provide support through the Work programme and to look for employment opportunities for them, which will address the issue and move them back into work.

We also always expected that we would provide a grace period—a degree of transition—for people who simply lose their jobs and find that their circumstances have changed dramatically through no fault of their own. We will not penalise those who are in work and doing the right thing. We will put in place a nine-month grace period for those who have been in work for the previous 12 months and lose their job through no fault of their own. We have always intended to make this measure, and I am happy to make that clear to the House today.

In addition, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made it clear that we will provide transitional support to help manage families into more appropriate accommodation—as we did when we introduced the housing benefit cap. So we will follow the same model of additional money for discretionary housing payments that we adopted for the introduction of the housing benefit cap last year. We will ensure that resources are available in the right areas, such as London, where a larger proportion will be affected. We will provide short-term, temporary relief to families who may face a variety of challenges, such as not being able to move immediately for reasons of education or child protection, supporting minimum levels of access to the housing market.

15:30

We will provide up to £80 million for this purpose in 2013-14, and a further £50 million in 2014-15. However, we intend to work extensively with these families over the next 12 months. It is not our expectation that we will need anything like that amount of money, but it is there and available to ensure that we can provide appropriate transitional support for those who may require it.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The whole House will welcome these transitional provisions. In my constituency, many people get up at 6 in the morning to catch the coach to London because they cannot afford to pay the fare for the train, let alone for a flat in Bermondsey. It is not fair on them for their taxes to be supporting benefits for people to live permanently without a job in some of the most expensive accommodation in the country.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, we have to seek to replicate the realities of working life as closely as possible in the benefits system. If we are paying for people to live in a part of town that they could not afford to live in if they were in work, we are trapping them in a way that will prevent them from getting back to work.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

More than 1,000 households in my borough will be affected, as in that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Does the Minister realise the implications of what he is saying? It is easy to score political points, but more than 1,000 children will be taken out of their communities and sent not necessarily to other parts of London but to other parts of the country. That is happening now, and the Minister is complacent about it. Is he prepared to see the dislocation of whole communities in order to make a political point?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply out of touch with the reality of what is happening in our country. He talks about the impact of the cap on children. But children are already having their life chances and opportunities damaged by growing up in households and communities in which no one is working. That is what we are seeking to change. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said last week:

“If we cannot make the rewards of hard work more appealing than a life spent on the dole then we will have failed a generation of children.”

That is the reality that we face today and it is why we seek to change the way in which our welfare state operates. The Government clearly have the support of the British people on the cap. If we do not reject the Lords amendment, the public will not understand why. This is a reform that is long overdue and the Government are determined to deliver it.

[Mr Byrne]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall state at the outset that we wish to seek a Division on that amendment, and I am disappointed that the Government have tried to invoke financial privilege to defend against a vote on our amendment in the House of Lords, where they know very well that they will once again be defeated. I am, however, grateful that the Minister has incorporated half of our amendment, by ensuring that there will be a grace period of nine months, but I want to set out the dangerous flaws that have now been exposed in the “one cap fits all” approach and also set out what I think would be a better approach.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way to the Secretary of State who I know will join me later this week in forming a new all-party group.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman says that he is upset that we are invoking financial privilege. Will he tell us why, throughout all the debates in the Lords and here, his party has not tabled an amendment to regionalise the cap at any stage, but instead chose to knock out child benefit?

[Mr Byrne]

Of course. The Labour party advanced the position in our amendment not, as the Minister said in a slip of the tongue, 10 years ago but well over one year ago. It was advanced by my predecessor and the Leader of the Opposition. During the passage of the Bill, we have talked extensively about the risks—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State might like to listen to the answer. We have given the Government ample opportunity to put in place safeguards against the dangers of their having to spend a lot of money patching up what is being done this afternoon. In the absence of those safeguards, I want to propose to him a better approach.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment. I will give way to him as often as he wants.

We have set out a clear alternative approach. The Government have today burned one third of the savings that they proposed for this measure because they got the policy wrong. Today, by conceding a nine-month grace period, they have incorporated part of our amendment, but now I want to show the Secretary of State a better way of instituting a principle on which I think we both agree.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Throughout this debate, we have seen a game played out by the Opposition: on the one hand they are in favour but then they vote against everything. I cannot understand why, if the right hon. Gentleman takes this principled position and if Labour has believed in it for a while, he has not previously advanced this amendment, which he apparently believes so passionately now needs advancing? Why not in the Lords? Why not here before? There is no answer except that he is trying to indicate one thing and run away with the other.

[Mr Byrne]

I spent much of this morning perusing the helpful Conservative party briefing on the Bill—I am sure that Government Members have a copy—page 2 of which contains a useful summary explaining how I, the shadow Business Secretary, the shadow work Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have set out clearly their support, in principle, for the Bill. However, we want to give the Government the chance to institute important safeguards—for example, not allowing the cap to kick in if someone has not been offered the chance to work and instituting new safeguards for homelessness, on which they have had to spend a lot of money today. The Government have not listened to any of that, and now they have had to come back to the House accepting half of Labour’s amendment and spending a huge amount of money, thus burning many of their savings.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way, but then I want to set out where I think we both agree.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. Having read the Conservative briefing, he will recall saying last week that he thought the benefit cap right in principle. Why, then, will he vote against it this evening?

[Mr Byrne]

We will seek a vote on Labour’s amendment on Labour’s benefit cap, and we are disappointed that the Government are trying to invoke financial privilege to prevent us from having that vote again in the House of Lords, where the Government know they will lose.

It is important to start by debating a principle on which both sides agree—the principle that people should be better off in work. Back in 1971, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) pointed out the dangers of the poverty trap and the possibility of changes in the tax and benefits system resulting in people not being better off in work. Frankly, little progress was made in tackling that problem during the 1980s and the 1990s, which was why the institution of tax credits under Labour was such an important part of our welfare reform. Together with the national minimum wage, it ensured that people were better off in work. It was wise, therefore, for the Government to accept the principle of tax credits in their proposed changes to universal credit. That, too, is a principle that we support, and it is why we are in favour of a benefit cap, but we would like one that does not backfire and one that works in practice. That is what our amendment sets out.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him just now by Government Members? Does he or does he not accept that it is wrong in principle in the long term for a family to live indefinitely in an area where they could not afford to live if they were in work?

[Mr Byrne]

The principle on which we both agree and which we have advanced reforms to put in place is this: people should be better off in work than on benefits. That is why we are so frustrated with the Government’s failure to get people back to work. Five people are now chasing every job. That is the situation with which we now contend in many of our constituencies. In my constituency, 33 people are chasing every job. That is frustrating for those who believe that people should be better off in work than on benefits. That is why we are so disappointed with the performance of the Work programme.

[Mark Field]

In constructing a regional cap, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no more money is expended than by having a cap of £26,000— in other words, that the regional pot will remain as it is? If we are to go down that route, will he also support the idea of regional pay and regional benefits?

[Mr Byrne]

I will come to the localisation of the benefit system, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have had for 70 years in this country, when I set out how I believe our proposal can work in practice.

[Ms Buck]

Will my right hon. Friend help those Government Members to understand one simple fact: that housing support and council tax benefit are in-work benefits, and that—thanks to those benefits and the tax credits policy—it is virtually impossible for any household of comparable size and comparable housing costs to be worse off in work than on benefits? The whole system is constructed to avoid precisely that scenario. Will he also help those Government Members to understand that the impact of the cap hits not only Knightsbridge and Mayfair—the Government want to run the policy by anecdote—but outer London boroughs and suburbs, such as Enfield, Barnet and Brent, as well as Birmingham? Where will those households find somewhere that they can be priced into?

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend did an extraordinary job of deconstructing the Bill as it went through Committee, and she is an acknowledged expert on this subject. Her point is absolutely right. The Minister was not able to confirm that somebody on £35,000 could receive, for example, housing benefit. I am reliably informed that that is, in fact, the case. Because the Government have not thought this measure through, we are now confronted with the extraordinary spectacle of a cap that appears to cost more than it saves. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place now, in some parts of the country that will not send the signal that people are better off in work than on benefits. Only the Government could have introduced a proposal that is, frankly, that much of a dog’s breakfast.

Let us take the cost side first. In this debate, we are in the happy position of not simply having to rely on costing an assertion made by Opposition Members. We are very grateful that we have got the analysis that was presented by our good friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In a blunt warning—not to just anybody, but to the Prime Minister’s Office—the principal private secretary in the Department for Communities and Local Government said:

“we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost”,

and that was before the Government burnt all the money that they have sent up in smoke just this afternoon.

A cursory glance at some of the scenarios that we will see in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) confirms exactly what is going on.

[Chris Grayling]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment.

We are grateful to the Children’s Society for telling us that about half the families who will be affected by the current “one cap fits all” proposal will be families with five children, and on the basis of the first impact assessment—I think—the Children’s Society calculated that about 21,000 families would be affected.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way in a moment.

Let us just see what that scenario looks like in London. The House of Commons Library tells us that a family in that situation will be taking a hundred quid in jobseeker’s allowance, £74 in child benefit, £255 in child tax credit, £32 in council tax benefit and—because of the high levels of rents in London—£350 in housing benefit. Under the cap, a family in that position will lose about £243. There is no way on earth that their rent will fall by that amount. Even out of London, a family in that situation will face losing £87 a week, and there is no way that their rent will fall by that amount either. Those families—some 21,000 of them—will be made homeless. Coincidentally, that is exactly the figure in the analysis produced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I am afraid that it is therefore rather ludicrous to suggest that there will not be widespread homelessness as a result of the “one cap fits all” approach, and if anyone wanted any proof of that, the Minister has just given it by telling us that he has had to burn a third of the savings that he proposes to make in sorting the problem out.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he recall that, when the housing benefit capping measures were introduced, the Government said that rents would be likely to go down? What would he say to my constituent, a higher executive officer with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, whose landlord has put her rent up by £100 from 12 January? She is below the cap for Brent, but she has been told that she will not be able to have a review of her benefits until 14 June.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend has highlighted a problem with which we are confronted in London and elsewhere. It was remarkable that the Minister managed to get through his speech this afternoon without making any reference to the latest DCLG estimates for how much rents in London and elsewhere are going to rise. According to some analyses that I have seen, they could rise by something like 41% over the next few years. Nowhere is that corrected or remedied in the Government’s proposals. One Department is simply not talking to the other.

[Ian Paisley]

Has the shadow Minister not just illustrated that this is a Greater London-centric issue, given that 60% of the high claims and high benefit payments are in the Greater London area? Across Northern Ireland, only one claimant is in receipt of an amount that would reflect a higher benefit. Yes, something needs to be said about London, but this issue does not affect the whole of the UK in the same way.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that we tried to make in our amendment—namely, that a “one cap fits all” proposal does not look as though it is going to work. We have heard the Minister’s reassurances this afternoon that certain families will be referred into the Work programme, but I am afraid that the Work programme is failing. The off-flow rate—the rate at which people flow off benefits and into work—in the last quarter of last year was the lowest since 1998. People are not getting back into work, because the Government’s back-to-work programmes are failing. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he is going to do about that problem.

[Chris Grayling]

I have two questions for the right hon. Gentleman, to which I would appreciate simple answers. First, as there are not yet any statistics to demonstrate how the Work programme is working, how can he make assertions about it? He does not know, one way or the other. Secondly, as he is skating round this issue in a big way this afternoon, will he tell us whether he supports the principle of a £26,000 a year benefit cap in London? Yes or no?

[Mr Byrne]

As I have rehearsed this afternoon, we simply think that a “one cap fits all” approach is not going to work. The Minister has had to put his hand in his pocket and spend a fortune to fix the problem. He tells us that the Work programme is working well, but the rate at which people are flowing off benefits and into work speaks for itself. It is at its lowest point since 1998. That tells us, I am afraid, that the back-to-work programmes are simply not going to work.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that some people will have to move home. Why does he think that that is unacceptable for the long-term unemployed? Every day, people’s circumstances change. They might lose their job, their marriage or their relationship, and those circumstances mean that they have to move home. Why should the long-term—often third generation—unemployed be exempt from the real world that so many people live in?

[Mr Byrne]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point with such force. No one is against people having to move home or to lower-cost areas of accommodation. What people are worried about is 21,000 families being made homeless, local councils having to pick up the bill for that, and that bill having to be paid for by council tax payers such as hers. What conversations has she had with her constituents about how much their council tax bill is going to go up because there is a new bill for homelessness to pay?

[Anna Soubry]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, following conversations with my constituents in Broxtowe, that hard-working people overwhelmingly take the view that the long-term unemployed should no longer be better off on benefit than in work. That is not only for the sake of the public purse; it is a result of the compassion that we feel—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh; they should know better. In the real world, some of the people I used to represent as a criminal barrister were third-generation unemployed. It is for their sake and that of their children that they should be back in work, and that is what these measures have at their heart.

[Mr Byrne]

They should be back in work, which is why we are so angry that unemployment is set to rise, rise and rise again over the course of this year.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Let me remind my right hon. Friend and, through him, the House that we are talking about benefits and caps that are completely and utterly inappropriate in London where many people in receipt of housing benefit because of high rents are in work. When they are told to move, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) suggests, there is nowhere for them to move to. Our constituents are being told to move to outer boroughs, but Conservative Members know perfectly well that moving to Croydon, Bexley or Bromley is no solution for people who live in Lewisham, where rents are lower. Let me make a further point. I am told on good authority that Croydon, where it is suggested my constituents could move, is now looking to towns in the north of England to house its homeless.

[Mr Byrne]

It becomes clearer and clearer that the flaws in this one-cap-fits-all policy loom large indeed.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are getting slightly misleading information about the percentage of people who are long-term unemployed? About 40% of them are on jobseeker’s allowance and have been for less than a year; a further 22% have been on employment and support allowance for less than two years; the remainder are on income support and are not required to look for work. These are not long-term unemployed people idling about; they are people who are either not required to look for work or who have not been on benefit for a particularly long time.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps if Conservative Members had not tried to play politics and had thought the policy through, we might be in a better place this afternoon.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In my constituency, as in that of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), rents might be £500 a month. That is not the sort of rent that we see in London, but one thing the areas have in common is landlords who are quite happy to take the money as often as they can, but who are not so happy to look after the property that the tenants have to live in. There are a number of rogue landlords. Is that not where the fire of Government Back Benchers should be turned—on those landlords?

[Mr Byrne]

Absolutely right, and I shall say a few words later about the dramatic escalation in the housing benefit bill that the Department for Work and Pensions foresees. Somehow, that has not featured in this afternoon’s debate, but we will come on to those facts and figures shortly.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Having sat through almost every sitting of the Public Bill Committee, I do not recall this issue getting any traction at all, so it is quite a surprise to hear it come up now. The right hon. Gentleman says that one size does not fit all, so is he going to tell us what sizes do fit, starting with London?

[Mr Byrne]

I am going to do exactly that. The Minister makes an important point about regionalisation and localisation, but the point has already been made that we have a local component to the benefit system, and we have had it for 70 years. It was such a big feature of the benefit system that in 1942 William Beveridge devoted an entire section of his report to “the problem of rents”, as he put it. I know that the Conservative party tried to block the Beveridge report back then and that Conservative Members do not want to admit this problem now, but I am afraid that it is a problem that bedevils their policy.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed my recently published Centre for Policy Studies policy that mentioned regional benefits. On that subject, for the most expensive part of the London would he set the benefit higher or lower than £26,000?

[Mr Byrne]

I shall come on to that directly, but I agree with the hon. Lady on one important point. It is important to take local factors into account. If we take out the pension system, the housing benefit bill is something like a quarter of the overall benefits spending. It has been localised for something like 70 years. Admitting a degree of localisation in the way we set a cap sounds as though it could be perfectly consistent with her proposals, although I have not read her pamphlet.

Let me give the House one more illustration of why this is so important. Perhaps the problem of the five-child family in London is included in the hon. Lady’s pamphlet. Almost half the benefits received by that family will consist of housing benefit, as opposed to only about a third of the benefits received by a family in similar circumstances living in a different part of the country. Pretty often, incidentally, that money goes to the landlord rather than the family in question. I believe that we should have a cap that is different in different parts of the country, but takes account of differences in housing benefit.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Would not a much simpler and more cost-effective solution for London be to do something to control the excessive rents that landlords are pocketing? Then we would not have to transport pensioners halfway around the country.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is right, and what has been noticeable by its absence this afternoon is any argument from any Government Member relating to what we should do about private landlords.

[Harriett Baldwin]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I promise that I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

A one-cap-fits-all approach will not work in London, and it will not work elsewhere. As has been pointed out by many Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom, the cap that the Government propose may not send people the signal that they are better off in work. Our argument is in our amendment, which says that the cap should reflect differences in housing benefit costs in different parts of the country. That has always been an element of our benefits system, but we would add a couple of extra safeguards. There should be a safeguard against homelessness and the kind of costs that the Minister has had to fix this afternoon, and—in my view—there should also be a safeguard against child poverty. Heaven knows, that is worsening enough under the present Government, and we do not want it to become worse still.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my second question? Would the regional benefit cap in central London be set higher or lower than £26,000?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady will have read our amendment, so she will know that we propose to take politics out of the issue, and to establish an independent commission to set the level of the cap. As has been demonstrated this afternoon, when it is left to politicians, they make a pig’s ear of it.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with his colleagues in the Welsh Government about his proposals for a regionalised or localised cap?

[Mr Byrne]

We have indeed had discussions with our colleagues in the Welsh Government, who accept the importance of introducing different arrangements for London and other parts of the country and of a solution that recognises the need to localise the benefits system.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am still confused about exactly what the right hon. Gentleman’s policy is. He may not know that the average salary in his constituency is less than £18,000 a year. Does he propose to reduce the cap to £18,000 in his constituency, or will his constituents be gutted to learn that he is defending the fact that they can obtain more on benefits than they can on the average salary in his constituency?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman would be wise to look to his own policy. I suspect that some people in his constituency would be better off on benefits than in work on the cap that is being suggested. Is that not true? Yes or no?

[Nick de Bois]

The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that according to the Office for National Statistics, the average annual salary in Enfield North is £25,500, which is close. I can assure him that many of my constituents do not think it fair that while they are earning a gross salary of £25,000, it is possible to receive the equivalent of £35,000 on benefits, which means that work does not pay.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman will accept that there will be people, under the £26,000 cap, who could be better off on benefits than in work in some parts of the country, so surely he too will admit the wisdom of having a different cap in different parts of the country. That is why we suggest that principle, and why we suggest that an independent commission looks at the levels. We have seen the muddle that the Government have got into—a muddle that has cost the Exchequer £80 million this year, and will cost it £50 million in the year after that; that is the cost of sorting out the homelessness that it has, over the past year, been telling the House would not arise. If the Government tried to take politics out of the issue just for a moment, and focused on the good old-fashioned business of getting the policy right, they might be in a better position to put in place a cap that does not backfire.

16:00

[Mr Redwood]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s idea; I presume that the regulator would be called Ofcap, or conceivably Doffcap. Would his party tell Doffcap that it would have exactly the same amount of money as the Government are proposing, or does he think that there ought to be more money because the amount is not really generous?

[Mr Byrne]

As we have seen, the budgets are moving around all over the place; we have just had £80 million put in this year, and £50 million will be put in next year, so it is not quite clear what the baseline is.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he has been extremely courteous to the whole House in giving way so many times. May I ask him to comment on the idea, mentioned many times by Government Members, that the scheme will get people into work, including those in long-term unemployment? What does he think that they would say to my constituent, a very senior teacher, who says:

“I am a teacher and because of the cutbacks to local councils am unemployable owing to my experience and qualifications as I cost the same as 2 newly qualified teachers…I have survived these past months by selling my possessions and borrowing money”

but

“these avenues are virtually spent and I am in the situation of having to decide between food and heat, let alone how I will pay for my accommodation”?

This man has always worked in my area, has lived there most of his life, and has served my constituents and their children, yet he is being consigned to moving to another part of the country under this legislation.

[Mr Byrne]

That brings me to the final point that I want to make, which is about how the policy will be implemented. We are pleased that the Government will take on half of our amendment and introduce a grace period. The Secretary of State has made it clear, from a sedentary position, that the cap is not intended to apply to those who are in work, but we are still not completely clear about how many hours a week someone will have to work to secure that exemption. I understood, in Committee, that someone needed to be working at least 24 hours a week on the minimum wage for that to happen, but the whole thrust of universal credit is to ensure, and to encourage people to take, mini-jobs. If someone is working five, six or seven hours a week, would they, too, be exempt from the benefit cap?

Finally, what would happen if a partner left their spouse, and that spouse, who had four children and lived in a constituency or neighbourhood across the river, automatically found themselves in receipt of benefits that were above the cap? In that tragic situation of family break-up, what happens to the parent looking after the children? Those are important transitional issues that I hope the Minister can clarify.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I give way to my right hon. Friend, and then I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions.

[Frank Dobson]

Will my right hon. Friend take at least a minute or two to try to get across to Government Members that housing benefit is not kept in people’s handbags or wallets? It is paid out to grasping private landlords, and until we do something about those landlords, the housing benefit bill will continue to soar.

[Steve Webb]

What did you do about it?

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister with responsibility for pensions asks what we did about it; again, in the Conservative party’s briefing for today’s debate, there are some interesting figures about the rise in housing benefit over the past few years, but of course closer inspection of the DWP forecast for the next few years shows that housing benefit is set to rise, year on year, at the same rate as in the past 13 years. That is why Labour has been right to expose the dangers of cutting investment in new housing and the lack of any policy making from the Government on what should happen to the private rental market.

This afternoon, Labour has set out its proposal for a benefit cap that will work in practice. We hope to press it to a vote and that the Government will think again about giving the other place a chance to vote on it—just to reinforce that point.

[Mr Redwood]

This is rightly difficult territory. I am relieved to hear that Ministers have reconsidered the transitional arrangements, and I am pleased that the Opposition welcome that. In the noise and heat of the debate, important truths are getting lost or ignored. We are not generous enough towards the disabled, and I was pleased to hear that they are completely exempted from the proposals, which should be widely welcomed across the House. The exemption of war widows, who often have very little to live on and whose former husbands sacrificed so much to help our country, is extremely welcome, as both parties in government have asked their loved ones to go into battle on our behalf.

I am also pleased to hear that anybody in work is exempted. The Government’s case revolves around something with which I believe the Labour party normally agrees: working should always be worth while. In today’s debate, there has been more heat than light. If the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party all believe that it should be more worth while to work, we need such a provision to achieve the desired effect. It comes down to the last-minute proposal that there should be some regional differentiation of the cap. We are no longer arguing for or against caps—we all now believe in that type of headgear—but Labour believes that there should be different fashions of cap across the country whereas, on the Government Benches, the passion is apparently for uniform caps.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to set a cap if one is not prepared to name a level for it?

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. Friend is ahead of me in my argument. So far, I think I have carried an expectant and worried Labour party with me. Labour agrees with all the exemptions, agrees with the delayed transition and agrees that we need to make working worth while.

[Mr Byrne]

I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was about to propose himself as the head of Ofcap in practice.

[Mr Redwood]

No, I like representing my constituents and I suspect that the two jobs would not be compatible. I am very grateful for the kind offer, however, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman prefers the name Ofcap to Doffcap. As Labour has not yet put forward proposals to deal with the people it describes as fat cat landlords, I think it might well be a case of Doffcap to the landlords, as we seem to be discussing how much money we will route to the landlords through the housing benefit mechanism.

I suspect that if I strayed into the subject of proposals for the housing market and landlords, you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. There might be common ground on how we can get better value for the public money being spent while ensuring that we do not cut off the supply of housing, which would be a very stupid thing to do by clumsy intervention. We need more housing at an affordable level for people on modest incomes.

We are talking about a group of people on very modest incomes, and it ill behoves people on decent incomes, such as Members of the House, to be too mean about it. We have the conundrum, however, that we always want to make it worth while for those people to work. We all accept that there will be a cap, but, if it is to be a regional cap, before deviating from the Government’s proposal to the Labour proposal we would need to know what Labour has in mind for the total costings and how the proposal would work fairly within an area as well as between areas.

[Sheila Gilmore]

One thing that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned is that when we compare the working family with the non-working family, all too often in this debate we are not comparing apples with apples. The working family would have child benefit for their children on top of the wage that is constantly mentioned and, depending on the number of children they have, they might well qualify for child tax credit. We are not comparing properly, so simply saying that the situation is unfair to those working families gives the wrong impression. Does he not agree?

[Mr Redwood]

I thought it was now common ground that for a large number of people on certain kinds of benefit, work is not worth while. We are trying to solve that problem, so despite all those things that the hon. Lady truthfully reports to the House, we still have that problem, with which both parties are wrestling. That is why the Labour party is not here today saying, “There is no problem: we are going to vote against the whole thing,” but is here with an alternative proposal at the 11th hour—the last possible chance to consider this.

Let us go back to Labour’s argument on the regional cap. If it had come with a properly costed and working proposal, I might have been sympathetic to it, but we do not yet know from Labour what is the total package of money available. We have not even been told whether it wants to live within the budget that the Government have come up with for the proposal or whether it thinks the overall proposal is too mean. If it wants to spend much more, it will not solve the “Why work?” problem because provision will become too generous again and it will have a public spending problem.

[Mr Byrne]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the budget actually is because although we have heard some figures from the Minister today, he has not set out, for example, whether the grace period will cost any money?

[Mr Redwood]

Ministers are very capable of setting out their own figures. I do not have, at the top of my mind, all the detailed figures the right hon. Gentleman wants, which are properly things for Ministers to report to the House, but they have detailed the total savings overall and they are trying to live within that budget. As has rightfully been reported to the House today, they have given up some of the savings to accommodate the transitional period. It is entirely fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a specialist, as is the Minister he shadows, to tell us how much difference there would be in his proposals. Clearly, Labour has not yet thought through what the total should be.

There is another, very difficult, issue to consider with regionalism: there are big divergences in house and flat prices within, as well as between, regions. We should recognise this point, which in some ways makes this policy a bit easier to stomach than some on the Labour Benches suggest. I heard a former Westminster councillor saying that she had done some work on the situation of families who would be caught by the cap in Westminster. Naturally I was worried and wanted to hear what her answer was. She said she had found a considerable number of properties that she thought would be suitable for those families, quite close to where they were currently living, which happened to be rather better value than those in which they were currently living, supported by benefits. That seemed rather good news to me. Members from London constituencies will know that within London there is a huge variety of cost in property—often street by street, not merely borough by borough—so I do not think the proposal is quite as penal as some on the Labour Benches suggest. That makes it quite difficult to set a regional cap because such a cap might be no more appropriate as an average than the national cap.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making this point, which a number of Opposition Members from Northern Ireland have concerns about. I represent a Belfast constituency and there are massive disparities between rents in the Greater Belfast area and those in more rural constituencies. If this sort of regionalisation was driven down to a very local level, it could distort people’s ability to seek work in the city or outside it.

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

I am conscious that others want to speak so I shall not extend my argument further. I just want to make the point that in order to consider fairly what is an interesting proposal from Labour, the minimum we would need to know is the overall cost in comparison to the Government scheme and how these difficult problems of judgment within areas or regions would be settled. That is an important consideration.

[Mr Byrne]

Presumably, the fact that homelessness will not be created, which is what the Secretary of State has argued over the past year, is the reason why he has had to find another £80 million—to solve a problem that does not exist. In direct answer to the challenge put by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), our amendment suggests that the right place to start this debate is by having a level for London and a level for outside London. That would begin to address the problem he is highlighting.

[Mr Redwood]

That is something we need to think rather more about, but unfortunately we have little time to do so. That suggestion might have been helpful, but there is also the problem of the big variety of levels within London. We need to know the extent to which the Labour party wants to validate the current high rents and whether there might be some other solution to the problem of very high rents that lies behind some of this difficulty.

The conclusion I must come to is that the best offer on this issue at this late stage is the Government’s. Something must be done to move things in the right direction and make it more worth while to work. All of us, on both sides of the House, are extremely concerned that in recent years, under both parties, although quite a lot of jobs have been generated a very large proportion of them have gone to people who have recently arrived, because they think the jobs are good enough and that the pay is high enough. There have been reasons—perhaps very good reasons—why people who are settled here and out of work have not wanted those jobs or been able to take them, but part of the answer must be that we have the wrong balance between benefit and work income, and we need to do something about that.

16:15

[Mr Frank Field]

If I may, I shall make one comment on the previous contribution. I thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was going to go a stage further: might there not be a connection between the number of newcomers coming here to work and the extraordinary rise in rents in some parts of the country? That also needs to be introduced to our debate today: we cannot run a welfare policy if we have an open-door policy as well.

Those on the Treasury Bench are having, they think, a good day, but if they look behind them they will see that all their supporters are newcomers to the House returned at the last election, except for two Members. There is no reason why those supporters, who have been enjoying themselves so much today, should know where we will be this time next year, or a little later. Some time next year, the Bill and, we are told, universal credit will come into operation. It might be that when those two things hit the tarmac Government Members will hope that Opposition Members show a little more foresight and consideration for those on the Treasury Bench than Government Members have shown this afternoon. My guess is that there will be two God-almighty catastrophes hitting this country. The constituents of Government Members will be at their surgeries and Government Members will be baying for blood. The tables turn in this game.

I want to make three quick points, if I may. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that I do not have their confidence that these measures will be implemented smoothly, neither universal credit nor the proposals before us. A lot of people will be in transition. Whatever the arrangements, there will be hurt, and they will make that hurt felt in the constituencies of Government Members, as well as in our constituencies.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Field]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am going to be brief.

On the insurance principle, those on the Treasury Bench prayed in aid the public being behind them on the measure. Indeed, the public are behind them on that, but the public are against them on the first group of amendments, which we pushed through. Obviously, the Treasury gave a total that the Department for Work and Pensions had to save from the benefits bill. The truth is that we will never get past the stage of picking on weaker people until we are prepared also to look at stronger people. Why is it that, somehow, the benefits of people in my position—those who are part of the baby boom who have done really well out of this country over the years—are never looked at? Why are we frightened to look at the concessions that, for example, people over retirement age receive as universal benefits?

If we are not to go down this track again—the biggest growth in the budget over the past 20 years is in the transfer payments that we are, in effect, discussing today—we must be a little braver and much more open about those areas that we think should be questioned, rather than having a diet of the sort that has been served up to us today.

On the £26,000 a year cap, are there not lessons for Members on both sides of the House to learn? One is that the Government’s proposals are unbelievably crude. I hope that they will adopt our proposals before they go much further in this reform programme. To my own side, I say that I do not want people to think that it is only out in the sticks that people think £26,000 is a high cap. People in London who work think £26 k is high.

We should not make policy because odd people have talked to us in the street, but yesterday, a couple of blocks from here in Strutton Ground, a window cleaner said to me, “Frank, I start at 4 o’clock in the morning. I wish I could get a guaranteed £26,000 for my efforts.” There are lessons for both those on the Treasury Bench and the Opposition.

My final point has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who probably knew that I was going to make it and so has disappeared. We have had a nationwide housing benefit for more years than I can remember, and one lesson I have drawn is that landlords are very clever at turning whatever we think of as a cap into a floor. Obviously we want to meet people’s rents where possible, although they do not have a right in the long run to live somewhere irrespective of what the rent is, but can we run a housing benefit system while having a free market in rents? My suggestion, drawn from the decades I have been in this House, is that the two are incompatible if we are trying to protect taxpayers.

I hope that those three points have been useful. Given that in a year’s time those on the Treasury Bench will want some sympathy from us when they are operating these measures, it might be rather gracious if they looked more favourably on the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), which would make their reforms better rather than worse.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who always provides the House with a thoughtful contribution. It is important to state that the number of newly elected Government Members shows that we were elected on a promise to get to grips with the welfare state. I represent a constituency where the average wage is very low, yet the jobs created there over the past few years have been taken predominantly by hard-working people from eastern Europe. I think that there is something completely wrong with the system if I can meet people on the streets in Llandudno and Llanddulas who tell me that they are better off not taking employment. There is a passion for these changes on the Government Benches, a passion for change that will allow people to do the right thing with their lives and take a job.

I am intrigued and disappointed to see that not a single Labour Member from Wales is in the Chamber to discuss this issue, and I think that I know why. It is because time and again Government Members have asked the shadow Secretary of State to tell us whether his proposed regional cap is for an increase in London, with no change in the rest of the country, or for a reduction in other parts of the country. I do not know a single Labour Assembly Member, councillor or MP who has advocated a lower cap in Wales than in the rest of the country, so it is pretty clear to me that the concept of a regional variation is based on increases in expensive parts of the country but no reductions elsewhere. The Labour party has provided no financial information on its proposal.

I am all in favour of debate on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made the point extremely well that there is an argument to be had about the regional variation in pay and benefits, but it is completely unacceptable for the Opposition to turn up with a proposal that is uncosted, untested and, in my view, intended to get the Labour party off the hook rather than contribute to any change. I do not consider myself to be a cynic on this matter, but I wonder why, when the Chancellor highlighted in the autumn statement the possibility of looking at regional pay, the Labour party attacked the proposal, yet it is now looking at proposals for a regional cap, as logically a regional benefit system must follow. I can only conclude that the difference is that benefit recipients are not union members, but public sector workers are.

[Mr Byrne]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt the need to add that rejoinder. There is already a very localised dimension to the benefits system: housing benefit. We have had a localised housing benefits system for about 70 years, and that is why the amendment states that, if we are to have a different solution for London, compared with the rest of the country, it is housing benefit differences that should be taken into account if an independent commission is appointed to set the cap levels. We already have that in place in this country.

[Guto Bebb]

That is an interesting comment. The right hon. Gentleman almost implies that there are no differences between housing costs in other parts of the country. In Wales there are certainly huge differences, for example between Cardiff and north Wales. In my constituency, there has been growth in the population of young people in villages such as Penmaenmawr and Penmachno, and it has been driven by young people who are working but cannot afford to live in the most prosperous areas. They have moved into areas where it is cheaper to buy because that is what they can afford. Why are people who do work and do take responsibility expected to commute to own a house, while that is not the case for somebody who is in receipt of housing benefit? That is another challenge to which we need to respond.

[Mr McCann]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? Does he not get the fact that people who work are also in receipt of housing benefit? Instead, he is trying to put everybody into the same hole of being workshy and wanting to claim benefits?

[Guto Bebb]

I reiterate the point that my Front Benchers have made: there are not many people in my constituency earning £35,000 a year before tax who are in receipt of housing benefit. That is the crucial difference. The average wage in my constituency is £23,000.

People say, “Are we in touch with the general public?” When I was appointed to the Bill Committee on this proposal, I held three public meetings in my constituency, and one message came through loud and clear: “Why on earth are you going to put in a cap of £26,000?” I think that the cap can be justified, because the Government are taking into account the needs of people throughout the country, not just those in my constituency and those in a low-wage economy such as Wales—a low-wage economy, dare I say it, that has suffered badly from continued Labour party rule for the past 80 years.

The big issue is that we are bringing forward a proposal. If the Opposition were serious, they would also bring forward costed proposals, but we do not have that. We have platitudes and excuses to try for tactical purposes to defend the party position. Ultimately, in this measure, we are proposing a benefits cap, trying to ensure that people see that work does pay and protecting the disabled and people who are in work, and this proposal, in the absence of anything else from the Opposition, is a proposal that we should support.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I just make it clear that I oppose a benefit cap in principle? This policy has been borne out of prejudice and political expediency, rather than reason. In every recession there are scapegoats, and it is usually the poor, who become a political football for political game-playing and advantage. I am not morally willing to involve myself in that debasing political game.

We all have to bring our own experiences of our constituents to this debate, which has exposed differences in their lifestyles, and at times it has been apparent that we do live in different worlds. I do not begrudge Members and their constituents who are in good, well-paid employment, a secure home that they can afford and a decent environment, but that is not the experience of many of my constituents, or of many constituents throughout the country.

I have lived in my constituency for about 35 years, and I live in statistically the most deprived ward in the borough. The vast majority of people whom I see around me desperately want to do what is needed to ensure that their families have a good quality of life. They pay back into the community in many ways, they work long hours often in insecure employment and their pay, in many instances, is low and often below the London living wage.

The risk is unemployment, which over recent years in my constituency has increased by 52%, and over the past year by 7%, so there will be times when many of my constituents will not be able to find work. They struggle, above all else, just to provide a decent roof over their family’s heads, and that is because we face the worst housing crisis since the second world war. Housing supply has not kept up with housing demand, council houses that were sold off in the 1980s and ’90s have not been replaced by successive Governments, and there has been an expansion in buy-to-let, higher-rent-charging landlords, who provide many of my constituents with squalid housing conditions and overcrowding—Rachmanite landlords, who are building up lucrative property empires.

[Robert Flello]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a tenant complains, those landlords kick them out?

[John McDonnell]

Some Members will have seen recent television programmes that relate to my constituents and to Rachmanite landlords. It has not happened overnight; I blame what has happened over the past 30 years. So what is the logic of the cap for my constituents. Is it an incentive to secure work? The vast majority need no incentive; they are desperate for work. Yes, there is a small minority who will always refuse to seek work, but there are already sanctions for that, introduced by this and the last Government. I already have constituents turning up at my surgery who have been automatically suspended from benefits for three months for the slightest infringement, and they include many who suffer mental health problems or who simply cannot work through the system themselves.

16:30

Is the idea to force people to move to cheaper accommodation? Most in my area pay the rents that they pay because they have no other option; there is nothing to downsize to. In any case, the new housing benefit regulations to force down rents have already been introduced. Benefits in my area already do not meet the full cost of rents. People are faced with options. How do they make up the gap between the benefit and the rent? In some instances this winter, there has been a choice between heating and eating.

I repeat that in my constituency—and this is happening across the country—we now distribute food parcels to keep people in some form of civilised existence. If people are to move, where do they move to? My local council is advising people to move to Leicester, Southampton, Manchester and elsewhere in the north. The problem is that the lower-rent areas are where there are no jobs. We are in a vicious cycle of forcing people into areas where they cannot survive.

For me, the cap simply means that more of my constituents will be forced into poverty. All the statistics demonstrate that children will be hardest hit. There is already the problem of children in families being churned from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation. That destabilises the family and has an impact on their education. The cap is supposed to control costs, but, as has been said time and again, we simply need to control rents. Let us halt the profiteering by landlords that has gone on in recent decades.

My view is simply that the cap is unnecessary and based on prejudice and political posturing. In past debates in the House, there have also been discussions about cutting the cost of welfare. There was one quote about benefits being an incitement to idleness. Such expressions were used in the debates about the poor law and eventually led to policies of less eligibility and the workhouse. We do not seem to have learned anything in two centuries about poverty and how to tackle it.

[Jenny Willott]

I have made clear my view on the total benefits cap a number of times already in the House, but I take this opportunity to highlight again that Liberal Democrat Members support the principle of a cap and the important message that it sends out that it has to be better for people to be in work than on benefits.

It is also important to exempt those in the support group of employment and support allowance and those who receive disability living allowance. We do not expect those people to work and it would be inappropriate to apply a cap to them, so I welcome the move announced earlier today. I also welcome the package of transitional measures that the Government have announced—in particular, the grace period to protect those who fall out of work. The Government’s grace period of nine months, announced today, is more generous than the six-month period that Labour proposed and was discussed in the other place. I believe that nine months is the right period of time to allow people a chance to get back into work. The vast majority of people who fall out of work will get back into work within that period, so the provision is fair both to families and to taxpayers.

During the debate on the cap in recent months, there has been a lot of rhetoric about huge families sponging off the state. I have sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Some of that rhetoric has been extremely unhelpful. Suggestions that all those on out-of-work benefits are getting more than people in work are simply not true. The rhetoric has been ramped up a little and that has been unhelpful for getting to the truth.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Government’s announcement on transitional arrangements, which is particularly valid for those of us with London constituencies. She mentioned unhelpful rhetoric. Does she agree that it is important that, across the House, we convey what those transitional arrangements are, rather than spending a lot of time making political points and scaremongering, which affects all our constituents?

[Jenny Willott]

Many living in London have been told that they are going to be made homeless and that everybody on benefits gets more than people who work. Those messages are unhelpful. They scare people and we need to make sure that, from now on, there is a more sensible, measured tone to the debate.

[Mr McCann]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Willott]

I will give way on that point and then I will not give way again.

[Mr McCann]

What does the hon. Lady make of what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said about the number of people who will be made homeless because of the introduction of this policy?

[Jenny Willott]

I understand that those are old figures that have been withdrawn and that new impact assessments have been published since. The hon. Gentleman can look at those and see what the new figures are.

As has been highlighted by many Members, the cap will hit people hardest in areas with high housing costs. Those tend to be in London, but are also found in cities around the UK. We are not talking about feckless, workshy families with hundreds of children who are sponging off the state. That is why what the Government have put forward today is much more sensible than the proposal sent down from the other place. Exempting child benefit would help those on the margins, but do nothing for those affected by the highest housing costs, who will potentially be most affected by the cap. The Government’s package of targeted support and discretionary housing payments is a much more effective way to deal with the issues that will be created.

I note that Labour Members have not tried to argue otherwise today. They have said little about the amendments that have come from the Lords. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I heard him say that the Opposition plan to vote against the Government on the motion to disagree, as well as to vote in favour of their own amendment.

I disagree strongly with the localisation of the benefit cap because that would create a hideously complicated system that it would cost a fortune to implement. It has been suggested in desperation by the Labour party at the very last minute. The proposal is incredibly vague and was summarily demolished by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Jenny Willott]

I will not give way any more because I want to give other people the chance to speak.

There are no arguments in favour of what Labour has put forward. It is far too vague to even be considered at such a late stage. I think that the Government’s approach is right.

As other hon. Members have said, alongside the targeted support and the grace period, we need to look at the issue of rents and the ridiculously high housing costs in parts of the country. That affects working families who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, as well as those who are on out-of-work benefits. The Government have been forced into a number of the measures that they are taking because high housing costs have forced up housing benefit and local housing allowance budgets over the past few years. That money is going mainly into the pockets of private landlords. Alongside the transitional support, which will help with high housing costs and help families in the greatest need, I hope that Ministers will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and local authorities to bring down rents in high-cost areas. That would be a much more effective way to tackle this problem in the long term in particular areas and would save the Government money in the long run.

Finally, I am grateful that Ministers have now made it clear that the Government will review the implementation of the cap after a year. I welcome that. I hope that it will identify any issues or areas where there are problems so that action can be taken.

[Simon Hughes]

My hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work. Before she sits down, may I say that the things that should give London Members the greatest confidence are the letter from the Secretary of State, which confirms that an independent consortium is carrying out a review of the recent local housing allowance changes, and that Ministers have today made it clear that this policy will be reviewed in a way that is public and accountable, and that if it then needs to be re-evaluated, that can be done by Parliament and Government?

[Jenny Willott]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I give way to the Minister.

[Chris Grayling]

I referred to this earlier, but I would like to put it on the record that we certainly intend to carry out a review, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said. We would automatically do so with a major policy innovation of this kind. We will carry that out in a transparent way. I also confirm that we are carrying out the other work that he talked about. I want that to be on the record for him.

[Jenny Willott]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying those points.

Finally, the Harrington process that has been put in place to review the work capability assessment has been an extremely effective way of getting outsiders to take an independent look at how Government policy is working. It has made significant improvements. I hope that we can learn from that process for the review of this policy to ensure that we are doing what is in the best interests of those who are affected by the cap and of taxpayers.

[Mr Slaughter]

This is how the benefit system works in high-rent areas. If someone with four children goes to Hammersmith council and asks to be placed, they will not be given a permanent home and will be told that they have no prospect of ever getting one, because Hammersmith council is demolishing, not building, social housing. They will not even get temporary accommodation. They will be put in a direct let property under the relationship that the council has with some of the seediest landlords going. They will be charged market rents, but will be living in appalling conditions.

Let us take a real example of a family with four children who live in an ex-council property—these slum landlords go around buying up such properties—on a council estate in the poorest ward in my constituency. They currently get £450 a week in housing benefit for a four-bedroom flat. That will of course be reduced to £400, so they will slowly but surely get to the point of being evicted.

On the day when they are evicted, those people will go back to the town hall with their children. They may then be accepted as non-intentionally homeless, and they might be put into accommodation in Croydon. However, Croydon council says that when the overall cap comes into effect, it will move its families to Hull. That family will therefore face the prospect of a double move.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not.

I end by asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who talked about how people should work, how much more likely it is that that family will be in work when they are in Hull. I mean no disrespect to Hull or its Members, but that family will have been taken away from the schools and community network in Shepherd’s Bush, where they have lived for generations and where there are employment opportunities.

This is about not just intolerance or inhumanity but incompetence. The Government are sundering communities and sending people away from their families and communities, and giving them no prospect of either a decent life or employment.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is an absolute delight to join the debate, which is of key interest to my constituents.

I first wish to talk about the people who have had the least said about them today. Indeed, I do not think any Opposition Member has referred to them. They are the people who pay the £175 billion benefits bill that the Government run up each year on behalf of the people of Britain. I wish to speak for some of the taxpayers in Gloucester.

I have done some research on average earnings in my constituency. The figures are not complete, but I think it will be of interest to Members, and relevant to their own constituencies, that of some 20,000 public sector workers in Gloucester, I estimate that 90% have pre-tax salaries of less than the £35,000 that is equivalent to the £26,000 benefit cap that the Government propose. That figure of 90% means that 18,000 people working in my constituency of 100,000 people are in that position

It is harder to get the same figures for people working in the private sector, but based on a straw poll of three companies employing more than 400 workers, I estimate that some 87% are on pre-tax salaries of less than £35,000 a year. I believe that the vast majority of workers in my constituency would be astonished that Labour proposes that there should be no cap on the benefits that people get.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse his figures. Given the scaremongering that we have heard from Opposition Members, does he know how many of those people who earn £35,000 a year are homeless?

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend raises a key point, and I will come on to the definition of “homeless” in a moment, as it is of significant interest.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

We all appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are in work are hard-working and may be getting less than the national average wage, but will he acknowledge that they may well be entitled to a raft of in-work benefits such as working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit and housing benefit? It is not a case of saying that people in work have only a certain amount of money and others should not have so much. There is a real difference between people’s overall entitlement and the simple figures about their wages.

16:44

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Lady makes a perfectly valid point. Some workers receive benefits, but I do not believe that any of them will receive benefits for their family equivalent to, let alone more than, £26,000 a year. I stand to be corrected, even immediately by e-mail to my office, but I am pretty confident.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know Gloucester very well, but it would be unlikely for people in Edinburgh to reach that cap, which is exactly the difficulty. Not everywhere is the same. Hon. Members have said that some rents are far too high, but we cannot compare the situation of people in Gloucester with that of people in London.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is welcome to visit Gloucester. We have lots of things to show her that she will enjoy. If her point was that there are specific problems in London, I agree with her, but I shall come to that later if I may.

The second group of people in my constituency whom I want to address is those on the lowest wages of all. The Government have been clear that one of their major goals—many of us campaigned for this long before the general election—is to reduce, and if possible to eliminate, income tax for the lowest earners in our constituencies. They have done a great deal towards that goal—I believe that 1.1 million have been taken out of income tax altogether. What message do we send to those who are not earning very much and whom we would like to take out of income tax altogether if we do not cap the benefits that those not in work can clock up?

We should send the lowest earners the message that this Government are on their side. We want to take them out of income tax when we can, and at the same time, we want to put a cap on those families who, for whatever reasons, are unemployed. That is a very important message to send, for example, to the young worker at Asda in Barton and Tredworth, who finds that the presents she buys her children at Christmas are not nearly as good as those bought for the children of the family next door, who are living more comfortably on benefits. This is a worker-friendly policy and Bill.

The third group in my constituency whom I should like to address is those who are the most worried and the most vulnerable, including the disabled—I have had several mails from disabled people—war widows and those on PIP or attendance allowances. As the Minister has made absolutely clear, the Bill provides protection for the most vulnerable in our constituencies.

I absolutely recognise that people could well be affected by some elements of the Bill, and the vast majority of them probably live in London. It is not for me to speak on their behalf or on that issue, but the Minister has addressed the problem with three measures: first, the 10-month grace period; secondly, a special nine-month grace period for those who lose their job; and thirdly, a package of discretionary funding. That seems to me to be a significant proposal for hon. Members whose constituencies are likely to be affected.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a good point when he warned of the consequences of the Bill in a year or two. Many Government Members, including me, are new to the House and indeed to the world of politics, whereas he has years of experience. I do not have his experience of debating measures that sound great on the day but do not deliver quite what they intended, but in 2010 the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I was a member, looked very carefully at changes to housing benefit. There were warnings from well-known charities such as Shelter and speeches from Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people would be thrown out of their accommodation and have to sleep rough on the streets. A year later, none of that has come to pass, although I may have missed something.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems in these debates about welfare is that contributions from the other side, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), are characterised by massive scaremongering about every single change? That has been reprehensible.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have heard from many charities, whose work I deeply respect in many ways and who are active in my constituency, and the strength of their words on some of these issues does amount to scaremongering. I hope that, as on housing benefit, they are proved entirely wrong.

I hugely congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on the ingenuity of his argument. I have no doubt that were he to go more deeply into the private sector, as I believe he is starting to do, he would be a fantastic salesman of unsellable products. Today, we have heard from him an extraordinary, last-minute and uncosted proposal that leaves us none the wiser about what the Opposition really believe. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that if we left matters to politicians, they would make a pig’s ear of it. He is right: he did. From the man who was in charge of the spending of taxpayers’ money and realised that he had spent it all, that was a hugely motivational factor for many Government Members, who realised that politicians had made a pig’s ear of it and perhaps it was time for people from outside politics to come in and try to do something to help.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous and I am grateful for his compliments. But he must accept that Ministers have so badly thought this policy through that they have had to face the indignity of coming to this House and promising to spend £130 million solving a problem that they have told us for the last year would never present itself.

[Richard Graham]

As the right hon. Gentleman will have just heard, I came into this House from outside politics, with a background in the public sector, the charity sector and business, where making concessions and being flexible in achieving goals was generally considered to be a merit. Perhaps if he had shown more flexibility in his approach to the handling of taxpayers’ funds, we would not be in quite the situation that we are today. I am sorry, because I enjoy his company, but I came to the conclusion that his approach today does not remotely add up to a policy. It is simply the continuation of a welfare culture by his party that amounts to gross irresponsibility, married to a something for nothing culture.

In summary, the Bill achieves the following goals. It protects the weak, the disadvantaged and the disabled. There are transitional arrangements in place to help families who are unintentional victims of the Bill in places with high housing costs such as London. It does ensure that workers who are paying the tax that goes to support an enormous benefits bill can see that the Government are taking steps to cap the amounts that are paid out. It is the right thing for Gloucester and for this country, and the amendment is a clumsy, last-minute fudge rather than any solution. I have no hesitation in rejecting it and supporting the Government’s proposal.

[Kate Green]

I need only a couple of minutes to ask three questions, particularly in relation to the Lords amendment on leaving child benefit out of the cap.

As has been pointed out many times, families earning £35,000 or £40,000 and families on benefits both receive child benefit—it is a universal benefit. First, then, how can it be right to have the same cap for a single, childless adult as for a family with children? Secondly, why are this Government, of all Governments, importing a new couples penalty into the benefits system? It might make more sense for a couple, each of whom might separately be below the cap, to separate than to stay together and incur it. I have never understood why this Secretary of State, of all Secretaries of State, wants to introduce such a policy.

Thirdly, how will the cap be uprated—if, indeed, it is to be uprated? What will happen if a family is forced to move to cheaper accommodation because its costs exceed the cap, and then rents rise in the new area and it is forced to move again and again and again? Until we know how the cap is to be uprated, children’s well-being and family stability will be put at risk, but I have yet to hear Ministers address that issue.

[Chris Grayling]

In the past hour and 45 minutes, we have listened to a debate that sums up the difference between the Labour party and the parties in government. With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the remarks that we have heard.

It is my view—and, I believe, the view of the public listening to this debate—that we have to change the nature of our welfare state. We have to move away from the world that existed under the previous Government, where children grew up, generation after generation, in houses where no one worked, and where entire communities had people with no experience of work in their family and who knew nothing about how to improve their lot in life. In the Bill, we have introduced a package of measures that will do nothing short of transforming our welfare state.

The great tragedy of this afternoon’s debate is that Labour just does not get it. We have seen an extraordinary attempt by Labour to get itself off a highly visible public hook over a policy that commands overwhelming public support in every constituency in the country. If we walked out on to the streets this afternoon and asked the public what they thought about a benefit cap, we would discover that virtually everyone was 100% behind this policy. Yet what we have heard from the Opposition over the weeks has been an exercise in dancing around the issue. There have been moments when they have said that they favour the benefits cap, but there have been moments when they have said that they oppose it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

Let us ask one of them who was on the Committee. Does the hon. Lady support the benefit cap?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I stood up to say that we cannot simply go to the population in the way suggested. When I was out on Sunday, one of my constituents said to me, “Yes, £26,000 seems a lot of money”, but when I asked her what she thought about so much money going in rents to landlords, she immediately changed her mind. We cannot create policy by giving people insufficient information.

[Chris Grayling]

You’d think they hadn’t been in government for a generation!

As we stand here, we still do not know exactly where Labour stands. I cannot, hand on heart, say, when the House divides in a minute’s time, whether Labour Members will vote for the benefit cap or against it. We asked the question again and again but they would not answer. They dance around the issue and come up with lame last-ditch excuses and new ideas that they did not discuss in Committee. At the end of the day, they do not want to give an answer to the public. In a moment, they will have to give that answer, because out there are millions of people watching us this afternoon, asking, “Will the House of Commons back something we passionately believe in?” We on this side of the House will be walking through the Division Lobby tonight in support of a benefit cap. We will be backing the views of our constituents; the question is: will the Opposition? Will the shadow Secretary of State, will the shadow Minister, will all the people who we have listened to in debates in Committee and in this Chamber—

17:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 47.

17:00

Division 457

Ayes: 334

---

Conservative: 277
Liberal Democrat: 49
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Noes: 251

---

Labour: 240
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

[Mr Byrne]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This has been an important debate, yet the Government have ensured that no time was available to discuss Labour’s amendment and to put it to the vote before the knife fell at 5 o’clock. They declared financial privilege on the amendment in order to stop it being debated in the House of Lords. What advice would you give me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how to ensure that this place is able to vote on Labour’s benefit cap?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Further to that point of order, I call Mr Iain Duncan Smith.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Far be it from me to suggest an answer, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) might like to reflect on the fact that his party did not vote on the programme motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

My response to the original point of order is that I am operating under the programme motion that this House voted for; I can do nothing other than that.

Clause 10

Responsibility for children and young persons

17:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 5 to 14, 16, 20 to 22, 24 and 25.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 27 to 46 and 48 to 72.

Lords amendment 73, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 74 to 110.

[Maria Miller]

As Mr Speaker has indicated, Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 26 and 73 impinge on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. In disagreeing to the amendments, I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason to the House of Lords. Notwithstanding that, however, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate the substance of the amendments, and to provide the Government’s full rationale for rejecting them,

Lords amendment 1 concerns elements for disabled children. Let us be clear about the impact of the amendment. It would force the Government to reduce support for severely disabled children and, moreover, would go against our commitment to increase support for such children to £77. I believe that our original policy, as agreed in this House, is the right one, because it targets support for disabled people not on age but on need, and removes the cliff edge of financial support that is currently faced by young adults and their families.

In these difficult times, we must make tough choices about where to target our limited resources. The choice that the Government have made is to protect the money that is available to support disabled people in universal credit, and to use it more effectively to ensure that the people who face the biggest challenge are given more support. I repeat that all the money is recycled to support disabled people. What we are doing is thinking about the whole life of an individual, and removing the current artificial division between childhood and adulthood. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who spoke earlier about the importance of supporting disabled people. We have ensured that we can protect the money that is so important to them.

As we have reiterated throughout our debates on the Bill, we are overhauling existing support. It does not really make sense to look at any one aspect of universal credit in isolation: it provides families with a new package of support to meet a range of needs, and for that reason we need to consider the overall impact of the offer rather than concentrating on any of its individual components.

A parent with a disabled child and who is working 20 hours a week on the minimum wage is likely to be £73 better off in work under universal credit, rather than only £13 better off under tax credits. About 30,000 more families with a disabled child are in work than are out of work, so it is right for us to target support in a way that helps working families. An out-of-work family with a disabled child can receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for their child once universal credit has been introduced. That compares with just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child, and about £1,000 for a family who only receive child benefit. Our impact assessments and modelling demonstrate that, overall, families are more likely to be better off on universal credit, and that there will be no significant change for disabled children living in poverty.

As all Members know, increasing spending is not an option. We simply cannot maintain the existing rates for disabled children if we are to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. That would cost £200 million, which we simply cannot afford. This is a critical point. If the amendment were agreed to, it would not be possible to increase the addition for the most severely disabled people to £77. Let us be clear: the decision to be made is whether we should maintain rates for moderately disabled children at the expense of raising the limits for severely disabled people. We strongly believe that the fairest approach is to align support between children and adults. We take an holistic view of an individual’s life. In summary, what is fair and right is to simplify benefits within universal credit, and to focus limited resources on the basis of need, not age.

Let me now turn to the amendments that deal with child maintenance:

“we should use every lever at our disposal to make reaching a voluntary agreement more attractive than coming into the Child-Maintenance Enforcement Commission.”

Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now Lord, Hutton, to a Select Committee of this House in 2006.

Let me make four brief points to put the debate in context. Conflict when families break down is bad for children, as we all know from our constituency casework, and we all know that all too often that conflict can be embedded and entrenched as a result of problems to do with the Child Support Agency.

The role of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has changed fundamentally. It is no longer about recovering, pound for pound, the benefits payments made to lone parents. Instead we have a benefits system that gives more than £6.5 billion in welfare payments directly to lone parents, both those in work and those not in work. In the past, change has been piecemeal. That has created the current failing system, which costs taxpayers £500 million every year; has nil-assessed more than 250,000 people, some of whom really should be receiving support; and has 100,000 clerical cases. It would not be putting it too strongly to say that we have inherited a real mess from the Labour party. The reform that we are undertaking is long overdue.

My concern is that the amendment from the other place is not about improving the situation; if anything, it would make the situation worse. It is about attempting to divide parents into those who deserve to be charged, and those who do not. Our reforms are about creating a behavioural change for the benefit of children, and about helping parents to work together. The amendment from the other place would make that approach unworkable.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has to say. This is complex territory that has bewildered previous Conservative Governments and, frankly, the Labour Government. Will she tell the House how many parents with care do not receive any child maintenance from the other party?

[Maria Miller]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman how many children do not receive any maintenance from the other party. Given that we spend £500 million a year on a child maintenance system, I think that it will shock the House to learn that for half of children living in separated families, there is no support in place. It is clear for everybody to see that the present system simply does not work, and the reason why it does not work is that it does not support families in coming together.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

May I say how strongly I support the reforms, particularly the link-up with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which seems incredibly sensible to the parents in my constituency who come to see me? Will the Minister tell us what will happen on the ground locally to support families who are separating? I think that is where the rubber hits the road.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will come on to this in a bit more detail in a moment, but I have been working with organisations such as Gingerbread, Families Need Fathers, Relate, and the Centre for Separated Families to make sure that we have the sort of support in place that has not been forthcoming for too many years, so that there is a structure for referring individuals to the right level of support via telephone lines, websites and the expert support that already exists. Importantly, we will also make available funding—some £20 million—to support programmes that help families to resolve their differences. That is doubling the amount of Government support for family relationships.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I support a lot of what the Minister is trying to do, and I know how dedicated she is to trying to help the Child Support Agency. However, I support the Lords amendment on charging. I agree with charging later on, when people are refusing to adhere to an order, but if the relationship between parents has already broken down, there is a risk that people will not go for the maintenance that they want because of the charging.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to clarify an important aspect of the current situation. More than half of parents within the CMEC system would like to make their own arrangements—they positively want to do that—if they had the right support in place, but they do not have that support. They see the CMEC and the Child Support Agency as the only option open to them, and that cannot be right. It cannot be right that we are not doing more to support families so that they can take responsibility and do the right thing.

[Mr Frank Field]

Is not the really big change that we are discussing the fact that when the CSA was first established, the maintenance moneys went to the Treasury to offset what taxpayers were putting up because, generally speaking, fathers were not prepared to do so, whereas now that money remains with the family? Is it not reasonable, in such circumstances, if people are going to get a top-up to their benefit that they should contribute to the cost of gaining that extra money? On the timing, should we not charge people once they are getting the money, not before?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right. Indeed, back in 1991 when the Child Support Agency was initially put in place, some £400 million of savings were attached to it because there was a pound-for-pound withdrawal of maintenance and the welfare benefits that an individual received.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

What would the administrative costs be of levying the £20 fee and processing it?

[Maria Miller]

I just realised that I did not finish my response to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He challenged me about the up-front cost, and why we were not just making an ongoing charge once money was flowing. It is very simple. We want not simply to use this to enhance a family’s income but to take the opportunity to help parents to consider whether they should go to the Child Support Agency as they could stay outside the system and make their own arrangements.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

Hon. Members will forgive me if I make some progress, as I may answer some of their questions before they ask them.

On the cost of the up-front payment, it is important that we recognise that the system costs the taxpayer almost half a billion pounds a year. We want to ensure that we are using the system to support families properly to take responsibility, but we also need to ensure that we make the prudent savings that taxpayers would expect us to make in these difficult economic times. The cost of charging up front will not disproportionately add cost to the whole system—far from it. We are incentivising people to come to their own arrangements. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), more than half the people currently inside the system would like to make their own arrangements. I know that by putting in place an up-front charge we will get some of those people to consider the actions they take.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make some progress. I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and we have another significant issue to discuss after this one.

We want to support parents in taking responsibility for their child’s financial support post-separation, so that they do not see the costly and heavy-handed CSA as their only option. As I have said, half the parents using the Child Support Agency tell us they would like to make their own arrangements, with the right support, which clearly demonstrates that the CSA has come to be seen as the default option.

We have already announced that we are putting in place the support that parents need to be able to come to their own agreements, with the collaborative arrangements that are best for children.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will make a little more progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

We are doubling Government spending on relationship support with an additional £20 million. I want to put on record my thanks to those groups that have worked hard with us to develop what that support should be—they are, as I have said, Gingerbread, Relate, Families Need Fathers, and the Centre for Separated Families. For families that need the more structured approach of the statutory scheme it will remain accessible and heavily subsidised, but there will be in-built incentives for parents always to see the advantages of working collaboratively and in-built incentives for parents to pay maintenance in full and on time.

Maintenance direct will be a no-cost way for parents to make ongoing payments to each other within the statutory scheme and the full statutory collection scheme, with its strong enforcement powers, will be a service that both parents pay for.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my experience that it is not a question of the system but a matter of enforcement? Whether the process is voluntary or goes through the Child Support Agency, the problems of children not receiving any money come about because there is either no enforcement or the enforcement is not effective. How will the system provide the enforcement action that is needed?

17:29

[Maria Miller]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s experiences of the current system and although I pay tribute to the staff who work in the Child Support Agency and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission for their efforts to make the system work, we all know, as constituency MPs, that there is a big problem with parents’ attitudes towards payment. There is absolutely nothing in place at the moment to prevent parents from simply waiting until enforcement comes into play. Our measures will ensure that that changes, and will mean there is always an incentive for people to pay on time. Importantly, we will ensure that if we have to take heavy enforcement action, the individual who has caused the situation will pay for it, whether through a deduction of earnings order or through other measures we are putting in place.

It is not the Government’s intention to block parents from using the statutory scheme and we are listening hard to the concerns of parliamentarians in both Houses. To that end, the Government have proposed amendment 75 to ensure that there is a review of charging, and a report to Parliament will be completed within 30 months of the introduction of that mechanism. I can announce today that to underline that commitment the up-front charge for parents choosing to use the statutory scheme will be reduced to £20 for all applicants. In return, parents will receive a calculation of maintenance payable that will, for the first time, be based routinely on HMRC data. Additionally, domestic violence victims will be completely exempt from the application charge. I am sure the whole House will welcome this announcement, which demonstrates that no family will be deterred from accessing the statutory system purely on the basis of cost.

[Mr Roy]

The Minister has just praised Gingerbread. Does she agree with what Gingerbread has said—that 72% of single parents would not be able to come to an agreement and that 50% of those parents would not be able to afford the application fees?

[Maria Miller]

I think it is very important to work with individuals in all the organisations that support families going through separation. We will not always agree on everything but it is important to work together because we must get a solution that is right for mothers, fathers and children.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify that the gateway for access by parents will be £20 each and not, as was previously set out, a more complex one? If that is the case, I congratulate her and the Government on listening to people, reducing those charges and making this more simple.

[Maria Miller]

It will be £20 for the applicant only, because we want to make sure that the system is easy and straightforward to administer. For that, applicants will get a calculation of the amount of money their ex-partner would pay them. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that, on an ongoing basis, the levels of charges will always sit disproportionately on the non-resident parent, because it is important that there is always an incentive for people to come to an arrangement.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Obviously, any change of heart is welcome—I do not think we would not welcome this—but there is something I do not understand. If, as the Minister has said, many people are reluctant to pay, how will charging the applicant—the parent with care—make the other parent more likely to pay?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady and I know that it is very difficult for us to sit in judgment over parents. Family breakdown can be caused by many different things and we need to make sure that the support is there for parents to come together and work together. All our evidence suggests that 50% of people in the CSA system would rather not be there and would rather be working in the way I have described.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right about the need for collaboration-based arrangements. To respond to the previous intervention, is not the inflexibility of the system one reason why non-resident parents often do not like paying? The constant barrage of letters, telephone calls and everything else means that they feel more and more reluctant but more and more pressured to pay. My constituency cases suggest that collaborative arrangements are sustainable and have worked.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right that the inflexibility in the system does not reflect true family life. Every single family is different. It is difficult to reflect that in a statutory system, which is why encouraging more people to work on those arrangements together, whether the issue is finance or access, is the way for children to get the best results after family breakdown.

[Ian Paisley]

It would be churlish to not recognise that the Government have listened, because a £100 access fee would have been prohibitive to families, especially the most vulnerable families, who matter most in all this. I put on record my thanks to the Government for listening on that point, because that will allow more engagement with the statutory agencies, which is how we can get to the bottom of these problems.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. It is important that we have a solution that we feel everybody can work with as we move forward.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

May I address the amendment directly? The Government accept that Lord Mackay had the very best of intentions in tabling amendment 73 in the Lords. However, his approach means that the Government, before deciding who would pay a charge, would have to consider whether parents had tried to be collaborative. In considering that amendment, hon. Members should ask themselves whether it is the Government’s place to monitor and judge parents’ efforts to work collaboratively after their separation.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I will give way in a moment. The implication of the amendment is that we should say yes to that, but the Government know that the answer absolutely has to be no. Not even under the simplest model of implementation could we see a way to set a level playing field of the sort that parents really need at such a difficult time. It would cost, we estimate, more than £220 million across this spending review and the next—a cost that would not be right for us to accept, and certainly not driving the right outcomes for children.

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has so much experience in this area.

[Mrs Grant]

I was a legal aid family lawyer for 23 years before being elected to this place, and I had the opportunity to represent many families seeking maintenance. It would be impossibly difficult, practically and fairly, to assess which families had taken reasonable steps to reach an agreement and which had not, unless we created an intrusive, Big Brother society, which I do not think anyone would want.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because she brings with her a wealth of experience of the practical problems that families face in these very difficult times. An additional effect of the amendment would be to put almost 100% of the ongoing charges on the non-resident parent. We agree that non-resident parents should have a clear incentive to pay a greater contribution to the ongoing costs, but I fear that simply loading all those costs on the non-resident parent could drive some perverse incentives and not provide the ability for parents to work in the collaborative way that I have set out.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

We would acknowledge that reducing the amount of money that must be paid up front by the applicant is a step in the right direction, but I am still not clear about the rationale behind the non-resident carer being more likely to pay up because the applicant must pay a charge. I am concerned about conceding the principle of paying up front, because what will stop the Government coming back in a year’s time and hiking up the £20 fee to £100 or £150? Will the Minister explain how the uprating of that amount will be carried out?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful support. It is really important that the up-front charge does not become a deterrent, which is why we will look at how charging is working 30 months after implementation. I remind her that the parent with care receives, in return for her up-front fee, a clear and detailed calculation of how much money would be payable to her through maintenance, and for the first time the calculation will use HMRC data, which will ensure that she has all the information needed to decide whether it is appropriate to go into either maintenance direct, where there will be no ongoing charges, or the statutory system.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the fact that the cost for the applicant has come down, but will the Minister explain what the charging will be and how much it will cost the Government to collect the £20, because it seems to me that it will cost far too much to collect a mere £20?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, we are all very quizzical about the CSA when it comes to costs, because we know that it has been very difficult to administer over the years. She will be reassured to know that we have taken a very straightforward approach and want to keep it simple. By charging an up-front fee and getting people to reconsider staying outside the system, we will be making considerable savings, as I have outlined. When she considers that each case costs around £26,000, or up to £40,000 if it involves any sort of enforcement, she will quickly see that getting people to reconsider will lead to significant savings.

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is being most gracious in giving way. I wish to help underpin her point. As MPs we all face multiple challenging CSA cases, the most distressing of which are those where claimants know that their spouse is earning lots of money but not declaring it. Getting a statement that for the first time is based on HMRC’s reported data and sets out clearly what recipients can expect is a huge advantage, and £20 for that is a cheap price.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support. The key is that we must ensure that we encourage both parents to work together, which is why we have configured the charging system in the way we have. That will always be in the best interests of the child, and hon. Members who work in this area will know that separation can be so damaging for children unless it is dealt with collaboratively.

[Mr Watts]

I am still not absolutely sure what the enforcement action that will drive some parents to pay will be. On the point that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has just made on people who have doubts about their spouse’s income, many of those people are self-employed and do not declare their incomes, so we will not be able to chase them, and that is the problem, not that PAYE will not catch them.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman and I know that self-employed people, although a small number of individuals, are disproportionately represented in the problem cases that hon. Members have. He will also know that self-employed people still have to do tax returns, so rather than ex-partners having to pursue individuals who might be self-employed and have no office at which we can get hold of them, we will be able to use the HMRC link, which I think is an important improvement.

With regard to the enforcement that we will be taking to ensure that things really stick, first and foremost it is about ensuring that there is an understanding in the House about the charges that we will put in place for that enforcement action. Implementing a deduction of earnings order does not currently cost the person defaulting on their maintenance a bean. We are talking about making sure that those charges are passed on, which I think taxpayers would expect us to do. We will also consider implementing some of the other enforcement measures that Labour Members put in place through the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is generous in taking so many interventions. My understanding is that each CSA case costs the taxpayer about £25,000 in administration charges, and that can even go up to £40,000 if enforcement action is taken, so what estimate has she made of the savings to the taxpayer that will result from the new proposals?

17:45

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend cites those figures accurately, and the savings throughout this spending review period and into the next will be considerable indeed—running, I believe, into about £200 million. That is money we can use to support families directly through organisations such as those I have mentioned, and that is why we have made up-front a very clear commitment to taking £20 million of the money that we will save and directly investing in it in beneficial support for families. That is the right thing to do with the money that we are saving, as is making our contribution to reducing the budget deficit, which we inherited from the Labour party.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I close on child support now?

We know that we have to get parents to work together, and the issue is not simply about maintenance, but about continuing to encourage co-parenting, post-separation. Again, where possible, that is the right thing for children, and that is why the coalition Government, with our commitment to shared parenting, are putting family relationships and responsibility first. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject this amendment from the other place, which could seriously undermine the very principled reform that we are undertaking here today.

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to turn to the housing measures in order to ensure that other hon. Members have an opportunity to contribute.

The amendments to clauses 68 and 11 would dilute our proposals to deal with the widespread problem of social tenants under-occupying their accommodation. The proposed changes would effectively allow that group to keep one spare bedroom and, critically, wipe out up to £300 million a year from the estimated £500 million in savings, which we would have to find elsewhere. That approach is quite simply unrealistic, and in the current economic climate it would be totally irresponsible of us not to press ahead with our changes.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the Minister not accept that in many areas there is no alternative social rented accommodation to move to, and that people will be expected to move from social rented housing to smaller, private rented accommodation, which will end up being more expensive and, therefore, increase the housing benefit bill, not decrease it?

[Maria Miller]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in that issue, as indeed do many other hon. Members, but I simply put it to him that many people in that situation will choose not to move. They will choose to make other arrangements and, perhaps, to get other people in their household to contribute to the bills. Indeed, I am sure he is right that some people will choose to move, and we are ensuring that there is sufficient time for them to consider their options and, importantly, making sure that support and a significant amount of discretionary housing payments are in place, so that local authorities are able to support people who have difficulty with the change.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s understanding, and, as somebody who represents more people in social housing than probably any other English MP, I know that the Government have absolutely the right policy to ensure that people do not occupy properties that are bigger than they need when the state is paying the rent. But it is not practical to insist that they move when there is nowhere smaller to move to, so Lords amendment 4 is entirely reasonable, because it refers to the situation when

“any such landlord is not able to offer suitable alternative accommodation which would not cause a person to under occupy.”

If a landlord is able to do so, of course the tenants must move, but if the landlord is not, the tenants will not be able to move anywhere appropriate.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; I understand the feeling with which he delivered it. I say clearly to him that we are saying that there is a great deal of time and considerable support for individuals who find themselves in difficult situations. We need to make sure that as many people as possible are able to remain where they are and that they are given the support to do that.

We have made considerable moves to make sure that the right support is in place, particularly for those with disabilities or foster care responsibilities. But I ask my right hon. Friend to consider how we would deal with what would be an enormous loss to the savings. Our basic problem is that there are 1 million spare bedrooms while about 250,000 families live in overcrowded accommodation. It is important for us to try to balance all those factors.

[Kate Hoey]

Would the Minister like to visit one or two people who I know in my constituency? It is only across the river. They are elderly people with one extra bedroom who have lived where they live all their lives. Their children have moved outside London because they cannot get housing here, but they occasionally visit with the grandchildren. This is just unbelievable—it is genuinely unbelievable that any Government would think of making someone move away from their family home. Will the Minister visit and explain the situation to those elderly people, who are so worried and upset by what has been suggested?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Again, I understand the thoughtful comments that have been made. We are not making anybody move. The average reduction will be about £14 a week, but for many it will be about £12. Given the amount of notice that we are giving individuals and families, we want people to be able to consider the available options.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

In many islands or remote villages, there is simply no alternative accommodation; the turnover of social housing is so slow that it could take many years for a smaller house to become available. What support will be available for people on islands and in remote villages so that they can stay in their own communities?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend and I have spoken about these matters and I understand the very individual problems that his constituency faces. It is because of those very individual situations that we have put in place significant support so that local authorities can consider different ways to support families living in rural areas some distance from other communities and make sure that they are not dislocated from their support networks.

[Guto Bebb]

This issue has been of real concern to me. In a recent letter that I received, Community Housing Wales argued that more than 40,000 individual tenants in Wales would be affected by the issue of under-occupancy. What it failed to say is that, according to Welsh Assembly statistics, more than 50,000 tenants in Wales are over-occupying. There is a need for social housing providers to look creatively at how they move tenants within housing stock.

[Maria Miller]

It is important that that part of the debate is recognised by the House. For every family in a situation of under-occupying, many have considerable problems with over-occupation.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) talked about her real concern for some of her constituents. I remind her, although she will know this already, that the measures that we are talking about are for working-age people only—not for pensioners. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that the tone of our debate is based on fact and not fictional evidence.

[Claire Perry]

About a third of my constituency casework is made up of Child Support Agency cases, but another third is made up of housing. In Wiltshire, more than 12,000 people are waiting on the housing list. Week after week, young families come in who simply cannot get the housing that they need. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we must support the principle and do what is being discussed to relieve the pressure on social housing lists?

[Maria Miller]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a clear point and an important contribution to the debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If hon. Members will forgive me, I will make a little progress, because I know that many people want to contribute to this debate.

Aside from the financial issues, there is the bigger issue of fairness, which hon. Members have talked about in their interventions. Is it fair for taxpayers to take the tough choices about where they live, only to fund tenants in the social sector to live in homes larger than they need? Is it fair that people who are renting from private landlords get housing benefit to live in accommodation that is a suitable size for their household and that those in the social sector are not so restricted?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If I am allowed to make some progress, I will perhaps answer some of the questions that hon. Members want to ask.

If social sector tenants choose to continue to live in accommodation that is larger than they need, it is only right that they make a contribution towards the cost. They can meet any shortfall through employment or other means. Those are the sorts of everyday choices that people living in the private rented sector and those who are not getting housing benefit have to make every day.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is clear that at the moment, the Minister is not giving way. It is for her to decide whether to give way. I gently make the point that it is now four minutes to 6 and the debate must conclude at 7. If Members were to have the opportunity neither to make their points through interventions nor through speeches, I would anticipate an extensive disappointment. I am sure that the Minister will factor that into her calculations in tailoring her contribution to the debate.

[Maria Miller]

I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I will make the rest of my contribution very brief indeed.

The average weekly reduction is likely to be about £14. However, that is the average. Nearly 80% of claimants are under-occupying their accommodation by just one bedroom and will see an average reduction of about £12 a week. Working for just a few hours a week could help to meet that cost. The substantial investment that we are making in the Work programme and universal credit will ensure that people are supported in finding work, and that that work will pay.

We have listened to the concerns about the impact that these changes will have on specific groups, so we have committed to increase the budget for discretionary housing payments by £30 million from 2013-14. That additional money, which could help about 40,000 claimants, is aimed specifically at disabled people and accommodation for foster carers. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we have an effective implementation plan that will support tenants, their advisers and housing providers.

Ultimately, the country cannot afford to fund what is approaching 1 million spare rooms from the taxes of hardworking families, when those spare rooms could be used by other families who are living in overcrowded accommodation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The chief executive of Halton Housing Trust has written to me. He states:

“Based on existing turnover of smaller accommodation it will take over seven years to re-house all of those households who are under occupying their current homes.”

He goes on to state that, in particular, it will affect

“homeless households and those leaving care.”

Does the Minister really think that that is fair?

[Maria Miller]

That is why we are already working with local authorities to ensure that they are well prepared for the changes. We have discretionary payments in place so that local authorities can take account of such problems. We reject the Lords amendment.

I will now move on to the remaining amendments so that I do not incur the wrath of Mr Speaker. The other Lords amendments in this group are minor and technical or simply clarify policy. They have already been announced and I do not intend to go into any further detail so that there is more time for Members to contribute to this important debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is not entirely clear to whom the Minister is giving way.

[Maria Miller]

I’ve finished.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has finished her remarks. We are grateful to her.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I will not follow the same order as the Minister. I will deal first with under-occupancy, because rarely have I heard such a pathetic defence of a Government’s position as I have heard here today. Their proposals are not based on fairness, and they are not intended to deal with the under-occupation of social housing. They are a bare-faced attempt to cut housing benefit.

18:00

Frankly, even though the Minister spoke for three quarters of an hour and kept telling us that she wanted to make progress, I felt as though we were back in the 19th century given some of what she said. She talked about social tenants as though they were a breed apart. I noticed that she called them “these people”. Many Members were once “these people” living in social housing, and some of us still are.

[Mr Frank Roy]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

Since the Minister did not afford my hon. Friend much opportunity, I will give way to him.

[Mr Roy]

I thank my right hon. Friend. What would she say to the 55-year-old man I met on Saturday, who has lived in his council house with his parents for 43 years and is now on benefit? He was genuinely frightened about the proposals being put forward. What can we say to that particular gentleman?

[Mrs McGuire]

That the proposals are unfair and are an attempt to disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged in many respects. They, along with some of the other elements of the Bill, are about to hit the poorest people.

I want to put on record the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is in her place. The Minister talks as though there were millions of houses out there ready for people to move into, but the Government do not know how many there are. They cannot even agree on what constitutes under-occupancy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

I will certainly not give way at the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North asked Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government what constituted under-occupancy, and they said that it was two spare bedrooms, whereas the Department for Work and Pensions has a far more restrictive interpretation.

[Ms Buck]

We know from the Government’s own impact assessment that under-occupation is a problem particularly, but not exclusively, in the north of England, and that overcrowding is a problem particularly, but not exclusively, in the south. Local authorities have legal duties to their tenants, and if somebody from Salford is seeking to downsize, local authorities in Doncaster or Hull are not permitted to take them because of residency qualifications. Will my right hon. Friend help me to understand something that the Government have completely failed to explain? How will tenants be able to move from one local authority to another?

[Mrs McGuire]

Frankly, I do not think the Government know how. The DCLG and local authorities certainly do not know.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

I want to make a little progress, and I also intend to leave some time for other Members to contribute.

I shall give the House an illustration of what I have said, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). Northumberland county council, which has a mixture of housing in various types of locality, has estimated that it will take eight long years before it can put in place the Government’s proposals. During that time, people on the housing list will not be able to get into housing that is suitable for them.

[Claire Perry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I am not going to take an intervention from the hon. Lady just now.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I will take one from my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does not what we have heard highlight the Conservative party’s misunderstanding of how social housing operates in reality? As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, we are talking about people’s homes. Even if they wanted to downsize, the housing stock is not there for them to move into.

[Mrs McGuire]

Exactly.

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

Oh, to put the hon. Lady out of her misery, I give way.

[Claire Perry]

I am most grateful. On a point of clarification, I thought I heard the right hon. Lady say that Members of this House continued to occupy social housing. Does she think it is appropriate for MPs earning £64,000 a year to occupy social housing and, presumably, have lifetime tenancy over it?

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady has a philosophical misunderstanding about people’s homes and houses. My mother lived in a local authority house all her life. She never thought it was anything other than her home. She did not see it as second class or inferior. She lived in it and it was right for her.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that successive Labour and Conservative Governments—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) should not shout across the Chamber, “My grandfather lived in a council house, you twit.” She should apologise. Frankly, she and other Members need to calm down. There is a decorum to this place. I know the hon. Lady. She would not behave like that across the dinner table, and she will not behave like that in this Chamber. That is the end of it. I hope we have an apology.

[Claire Perry]

I apologise profusely, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I call Sir Bob Russell.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Successive Labour and Conservative Governments from 1945 to 1980 built a massive supply of family council houses, but for the next 30 years, they did not. It is a question of supply and demand. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need more affordable rented houses?

[Mrs McGuire]

I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Housing was built in the 1940s and ’50s to deal with the nuclear family that everybody knew at the time. The way in which families have developed, including the growth in the number of single-parent households, was not factored in. That goes for the social rented and private sectors.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady definitely is not getting in—certainly not at the moment.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that there are communities in all nations of this country—smaller communities, but sometimes larger ones—where there is an insufficient supply of houses, which is very true. People might have lived in them all their lives and would be unable physically to move.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. This problem is not isolated to Argyll and other island communities. In Scotland, 44% of social tenants need a one-bedroom house, yet only 24% can have one. That is the fundamental nature of the housing stock in the whole country.

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point.

[Maria Miller]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

All right then.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Lady. It is very gracious of her to give way so that I can clarify matters. She will obviously be aware of the new national home swap scheme, which, importantly, will help people to identify housing in other areas, which is what she is talking about. We are also providing funding to councils of some £13 million over the next four years so that they can support under-occupying tenants who wish to move.

The right hon. Lady will also know that there is a great deal of commitment from the Government in terms of helping to build affordable housing: some £4.5 billion will help to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. Those are all ways in which we can make the sort of changes that she wants. Just to clarify, as a lady who was born in a council house—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This really is an abuse. It is a novelty, in my experience, for a Minister to intervene from the Front Bench reading from a folder. That really will not do. Interventions should be brief, and it would be good if the House—both sides—could get back into the courteous mood in which it found itself yesterday and for part of today.

[Mrs McGuire]

I listened to what the hon. Lady said, but she has obviously had no experience of trying to arrange a mutual swap in a small local authority area. We will have not only mutual swaps in small local authority areas, but national swaps, all supported by some anonymous Government agency. Frankly, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Mr Watts]

Will my right hon. Friend encourage people to consider judicial review, because they are being asked to move to smaller accommodation that does not exist, on which basis the Bill is a fine on benefits and a fine on some of the poorest people in Britain?

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and no doubt he will pursue it outside this House.

Before I move on, I want the House to hear what Lord Freud said in the other place when asked about how people would cover the reduction in rent. The Minister glibly passed over it, saying that it was only £12 or £14 on average. Lord Freud said:

“Claimants affected by this measure will have to decide whether to meet any shortfall themselves—from their earnings for example, or they could take in a lodger, or someone they know, to fill the extra bedrooms.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. GC72.]

How many times does the Government expect people to take lodgers into their family home? Will social landlords even allow lodgers to be taken in, because in my experience they do not allow it? I see the Liberal Democrats are nodding. Ministers also need to make it clear whether rent received in such circumstances would be taken into account in benefit calculations. They are putting people in an unbelievable bind.

This proposal is ill thought-out and will not achieve its aims. It is predicated on an assumption in the impact assessment that will not work. It will push the poorest people, including those who are working—we should not forget that this is an in-work benefit—into even greater disadvantage. It will force social landlords to take eviction action if people end up in arrears. In other words, it is a disaster of a policy, and we should support the Lords in these amendments.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as the socially disastrous consequences that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, does she recognise that under the parity principle this measure would have to be transposed to Northern Ireland? Particular difficulties will be caused in relation to access to social housing in the future and to the demands for new social houses that are benefit-sized to be built in particular locations. Given the geo-sectarian tensions in parts of Northern Ireland, it could be a factor for destabilisation, with certain communities being seen to be punished for their current demographic status.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend has highlighted exactly why this particular proposal has been ill thought-out.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I do not want to take up as much time as the Minister. I shall move on to the Child Support Agency—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have made it perfectly clear that I am not giving way: I am moving on to the subject of the CSA.

The Government should never have brought forward this proposal, although I welcome the Minister’s statement today that they have reduced the fee. Why they put everybody through the anxiety of putting a fee—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have not really said anything about the CSA yet, so if the hon. Lady could just be patient—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just make it clear. It is obvious that the shadow Minister is not giving way at the moment. On the Government side, during my time in the Chair since 5.30, there was a preference—on the whole—not to give way to Opposition Members and that is now being replicated by the right hon. Lady. Members may make what they like of that, but there is nothing disorderly about it. It is no good people yelling from a sedentary position to express their frustrations. They must try to contain those frustrations, which I notice the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is now successfully doing.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you for your wise words, Mr Speaker.

We welcome the reduction that the Minister announced today, and for the record, we welcomed in the other place the additional funding of £20 million that was going to be put in to encourage—

[Anna Soubry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you help me? If a Member asks a question of the whole House, how does one respond to that question other than by asking that Member to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is asking me to speculate about a hypothetical. We could probably have a seminar about the matter, and it might be instructive. There could be a time for that, but it is not now. I feel sure that the hon. Lady has raised not a point of order, but a point of disappointment.

[Mrs McGuire]

I always hate to disappoint Tories, Mr Speaker.

The Minister mentioned some concessions, but it remains an unfair imposition on parents with caring responsibilities to make them pay a fee to obtain, in her words, a calculation of what they may be entitled to. The Government are always keen to say that people should do the right thing, but what happens when they try to do the right thing and adopt a collaborative approach? Frankly, all the evidence shows that a collaborative approach is often the last thing that people can get when a marriage breaks down—all sorts of issues to do with personalities, emotions and children being part of the bartering process between two parents make that almost impossible.

18:15

The Minister was a bit dismissive of some of her colleagues in the House of Lords. I want to come back to them in a moment. If the Minister gets the opportunity to wind up, will she tell the House where the Government got the figure of £25,000 from? That, apparently, is the cost to the taxpayer of each case. I cannot find the source for that figure. If we divide 1,142,600 cases into £450 million, which is how much it costs to run the CSA, we get an annual cost of £393.90. So where on earth does the £25,000 figure come from? I would be interested to know.

Members of the House of Lords did not just object to the amount of money to be paid; they objected on the basis of the principle that if a parent with caring responsibilities was entitled to maintenance for the children or child whom they looked after, they should get that support. An array of Conservative Members of the House of Lords have asked the Government to change their mind: Lord Carrington, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Lord Howe of Aberavon, Lord Jenkin, Lord Lawson of Blaby, Lord MacGregor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Mawhinney, Lord Mayhew, Lord Newton and Lord Wakeham. I remember the ’80s, and I do not think that any of these people were fully paid up members of the liberal tendency. Yet they have all asked the Government to change their mind on the point of principle. I hope, then, that we get something more than what we heard from the Minister tonight. This is a ridiculous provision that, frankly, should not have been in the Bill in the first place.

Now we come to disabled children. This is the cut that even the Prime Minister did not want to admit to. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) again asked about it today, and again the Prime Minister refused to recognise the reality. I particularly congratulate the Lords on dealing with this issue and not running away from it, because it would have been easy for them to put this matter to one side after they were defeated by two votes on 12 December. But they did not. They returned to it last night and voted to challenge the Government on the cuts to the disabled children allowance.

The Minister has been clever with her statistics but according to Every Disabled Child Matters, the loss under the new system could amount to as much as £22,000 during the childhood of a disabled child and will cost the parents of a disabled child nearly £1,400 a year, and approximately 170,000 families will have this benefit frozen from 2013. I admit that there are transitional arrangements, but I have never come across a piece of legislation with so much sticking tape—there are reviews here and transitional arrangements there. This is not a strategy; it is a dog’s mess.

Every Disabled Child Matters estimates that approximately 63% of all future disabled children will lose out as a result of this policy. The Minister is an honourable woman and has tried to be gentle with the House today by using fine words about how this will not mean one thing to children and will mean another thing, but the reality is that in order to pay the most severely disabled children an extra £1.75 a week, children who are not as disabled—I use those words advisedly—will lose their benefit. We are talking about children who, for the most part, do not have night-time care needs. Typically, they include children with Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy, and children who are profoundly deaf. In future, disabled children will not receive any benefit from the transitional arrangements; indeed, any disabled child born after 2013 will access significantly less support.

I appeal to Members, particularly Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that they will look at what their colleagues supported in the Lords. In fact, I even appeal—although not very much—to some Conservative Members to look at what their colleagues in the Lords did. This is an amendment to be supported. It is about decency, about disabled children and about the support that families who are at the hard end of looking after disabled children deserve to receive. I hope that this House supports the amendment.

I said that I would not speak as long as the Minister, but I want briefly to draw the House’s attention to Lords amendment 77. At the end of the last day on Report, the Government secured an amendment to the Bill that, on closer examination, significantly weakened obligations that had been placed on them by the previous Government’s Child Poverty Act 2010. That amendment replaces references to “progress” in the 2010 Act with much weaker language about “measures”. Child Poverty Action Group, among others, points out that that is, in effect, removing the duty to achieve any progress towards meeting the targets before 2020. I hope that we do not lose sight of that.

I have tried—in a shorter time than the Minister—to set out some of the issues that have been raised in recent weeks. Labour Members feel very strongly about those issues because they impact on the poorest, those who are most disadvantaged and those who have been demonised because they live in socially rented housing, and because they do not take into account the fact that children at the age of 14 or 15 might require a bit of extra room and do not all need to be decanted into a tiny box of a flat. I appeal to the Government to consider seriously what is being proposed today, and to support the Lords amendments rather than disagreeing with them.

[Andrew Percy]

I notice that the shadow Minister commented on how she felt the Minister had performed. I would describe her own performance as a little bit chippy, but that is not to say that she did not make a few good points. Many of us on this side of the House have had similar experiences to those on her side. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I like her a great deal, but for her to talk about Conservative Members in the way she did—to intimate that they are in some way detached from humanity—not only does her a great disservice, but does the debate in this House a great disservice. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is not to say that the right hon. Lady did not make a good few points, which I will come on to in a moment—I notice that the “Hear, hears” have stopped on this side of the House.

I want to speak about Lords amendment 73 and then say a little something about under-occupancy. I think all of us who have dealt with the Child Support Agency know that it is a body that is not fit for purpose. The example I gave to the Minister the other day—a close family member of mine is going through this at the moment—concerns an errant partner who is being chased more aggressively, and successfully, for his parking fine than for the maintenance of his own children. It seems that the system is currently based entirely on conflict. We need to do something to address that. I agree with everything that the Minister said—and with her intention—about encouraging people to come to their own arrangements. However, I am a little concerned in that I do not necessarily think that, for a lot of people, levying a £20 charge—or any charge—against what will normally be the mother is likely to effect that change.

We have all seen cases where communication has completely broken down and where the errant parent—normally the father—is doing everything they can to avoid having to pay, particularly if they are self-employed, because the system seems to assist self-employed parents in avoiding their responsibilities. I am not sure that imposing a charge on—normally—the mother is likely to change that situation greatly or effect the cultural change that I think we all want.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister was unable to give us any indication of the cost of collecting the £20 charge? Is it not clear that the cost of collecting and banking it will far outweigh the moneys received? The proposal is therefore vindictive, rather than anything else.

[Andrew Percy]

I am quite relieved that the Minister did not give us an estimate of the costs, because most Government estimates of costs tend not to be correct anyway. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, however, and it has also been made by Members on this side of the House. I welcome what the Minister has said about the £20 charge; it proves that he has listened.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the reduction in the charge, but does he agree that the proposed collection charges do not seem logical? It is difficult to see the logic in making a family in need of child maintenance pay the cost incurred by the non-resident parent’s resistance to paying that maintenance.

[Andrew Percy]

That is exactly where I am coming from on this issue; I agree with the hon. Lady.

In closing my comments on this amendment, I will quote Lord Mackay, who said in the other place:

“The motivation of the Government for these charges is said to be trying to bring people to voluntary arrangement. I am entirely in favour of that.”

I would be, too. He continued:

“But if that proves impossible, when the woman is at the stage of having nothing more that she can do, she has to pay. What does that do? If anything, it might make her not go to the Child Support Agency”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 1092.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will not give way at the moment—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, as she was denied earlier.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is as gracious as ever. There is much merit in what he says about a woman who is on benefit chasing a father who is, frankly, not up to scratch. Although £20 is a lot of money for someone in those circumstances who is on benefit, does hon. Friend agree that, if the woman is guaranteed a system that is fit for purpose, there is merit in that small charge being excised on her because eventually she and, most importantly, her children will get what they deserve?

[Andrew Percy]

We all want to achieve a service that is fit for purpose, but I am not sure that the charge is about delivering such a service. It will certainly not cover the cost of so doing. It seems to be more about effecting a cultural change, and I do not believe that charging the mother £20 will effect such a change. It would therefore end up being a tax on the mother who is trying to get money from an errant father. That is why I have a bit of a problem with the principle.

[Mr Watts]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

I will not give way at the moment, as I want to say a little something about under-occupancy, and a lot of people want to speak in the debate.

I listened to the debate about under-occupancy, and I am sorry that it turned into such a knockabout. There is significant under-occupancy in parts of the area that I represent. In my time as a councillor in the city of Hull, I represented a big council estate on which there was a huge amount of under-occupancy, which was largely, but not entirely, due to older people. Dealing with the matter is not as simple as just talking about housing swaps. I have tried to arrange housing swaps for constituents within the local authority, never mind outside it, and it is incredibly difficult. One party often gets cold feet and pulls out of the arrangement, for example. It is not easy to achieve at all.

That does not mean that we should do nothing about the problem, however. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was interesting in this regard. We talk about under-occupancy figures, but we must also consider the figures for over-occupancy.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will not give way; I want to finish in a moment.

When I was a councillor, a lady came to see me. She had inherited a house from her parents. It was her home; she had lived in it with her parents all her life. She would now be considered to be under-occupying that home. I am sure that the Ministers understand this, but I plead with them to take account of the fact that houses are not only public assets; they are also people’s homes, and people have an attachment to them. This is not a simple matter to resolve, even though we should encourage an end to under-occupancy.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is right to say that houses are also people’s homes. Does he acknowledge, however, that the tenants of housing associations and local authorities are able to rent out their rooms?

[Andrew Percy]

I am not sure that that is really the strongest argument to plead in aid of change.

These are people’s homes, but we must do something about under-occupancy. My local authority attempted to put a scheme in place to deal with the problem. We moved my grandma out of a bigger house into a small housing association home because it suited her, and it was done at the right time for her. Speaking from my experience as a local authority councillor in an area where under-occupancy is a problem, however, I can tell the House that this is not going to be an easy one to solve.

18:30

[Malcolm Wicks]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I shall echo some of his remarks on the child maintenance charge.

I have been privileged to be a Member for 20 years, and I have noted that the issue of child maintenance and child support has been a running controversy and a running sore through Parliament and Government during that whole period. I shall briefly remind the House of the background. While there have, of course, always been children in this and similar countries brought up by only one parent—war widows after the first world war would be an obvious example—it is nevertheless true that in the post-war period there has been a kind of social revolution whereby very significant numbers of children spend either a proportion or all of their childhoods living—usually with their mum but sometimes, in a minority of cases, with their father—in so-called one-parent families. That is about divorce, which remains at a high level; it is about separation—and cohabitation is more likely to lead to separation than marriage; it is about the fact that many children are born “out of wedlock”, to use a quaint term, and live with a single mother.

This has been a major contributory cause to what we call child poverty, which interfaces with economic insecurity. I think that Parliaments and Governments have found it more difficult to grapple with and honestly discuss family insecurity than economic insecurity caused by low wages or unemployment. As I say, Governments have found it difficult. The old maintenance system, which was run by the courts, did not work: it delivered low levels of maintenance or no maintenance to many mothers and children.

The previous Conservative Government established the Child Support Agency—I think they were right to do so—but many former Conservative Ministers bear the scars of trying to make it work. They did not make it work effectively for all children. That was not because of incompetence—there were computer problems and the rest—but because this is one of the most difficult areas of government. It is the state—perfectly properly, in my judgment—trying to mediate during the pain, anger and passions of family breakdown, when issues of access and custody are also present. Although the old Child Support Agency had some successes, it never succeeded in getting maintenance from those fathers—yes, I know, sometimes mothers, but I am going to talk about fathers—who absolutely refused to fulfil their parental obligation and support their own children.

The last Labour Government tried to improve the situation and they might have done to some extent, but if we are honest about this—I am not normally one who tries to take the politics out of politics; otherwise I would have to join the Liberal Democrat party—some humility is justified in this case. For getting on for 20 years, Governments of left and right have failed to tackle this issue adequately. We really need to point again at the sheer scandal of there being too many parents out there who refuse to support their own children financially. That is the reality.

When I intervened on the Minister—it was good of her to give me the statistics—she said that among these families half, fully half, are not receiving child maintenance. What does that mean? It means either that the children are living in relative poverty and/or that other mums and dads in the community, whom we call taxpayers, are being asked in difficult economic circumstances to support not only their own children but other people’s children as well. What I am leading up to is to ask whether the idea of a charge to be able to use the system helps or hinders that process.

I do not think I am against a charge per se. Given that taxpayers have a stake in this, as well as, usually, the mother or “the parent with care” to use the awful jargon, and the child—they are the parties that have an interest in this—I am not against the taxpayer in a sense benefiting through proper payment of maintenance. We could discuss how that might come about; but if there is to be a charge, as was argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), why should it not be levied when the flows of maintenance are coming to the mother and benefiting the child? Why should a fee be charged immediately rather than later in the process? I think that many Members would agree with that, but perhaps the Minister would like to comment.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to answer his question. Fees and charges have been inherent in the child maintenance system from the start, since 1991. As he knows, his own party advocated the use of fees when it was in government, as indeed did Sir David Henshaw. Why? Because charging fees is a way of trying to get people to take responsibility. If that is done up front before an individual gets into the system, we are more likely to effect the behavioural change that I think is so important.

[Malcolm Wicks]

In general, it is the mothers of Britain—sometimes it is the fathers with care, but it is generally the mothers—who have taken on huge responsibilities. It is the parent who does not pay who is the irresponsible party, and who reneges on his duty to care for his own children. I want a system that can be tough-minded about the fathers who refuse to pay. They are often self-employed, and have become deliberately self-employed. The mothers often know where they live. A mother will have heard about the new person in the father’s life, about the fancy car outside the house, about the foreign holidays—yet the system has failed to make those fathers pay. Let me put the question to the Minister again. Will a charge help in those circumstances?

Many mums will know that the Child Support Agency, or whatever we choose to call it, does not work. We want to make it work, but people say, “My friends didn’t get anywhere.” Only recently I discussed with the Secretary of State the case of one of my constituents who, throughout the lifetime of four children, never received any maintenance. That person thinks that the system does not work. I want it to work, but if some mothers are deterred from using the system, it will be a failure.

This should not be a big party issue, and I hope that the Department will reflect again on when the charge might be levied.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend the Minister on the issue of the Child Support Agency, but I want to make a brief observation on the housing benefit issue. My constituency might be wholly different from those of the Members who have spoke so far, but the overwhelming majority of the cases I deal with at my surgery involve people who want additional rooms because they have growing families or families who are becoming older. If this charge causes some people to want to downsize, that will help to strike a balance, but at present I do not encounter people who want to downsize.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lilley]

Members will have an opportunity to make their points later in the debate. I am merely saying that in my constituency—

[Mr Watts]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will.

[Mr Watts]

I am grateful.

How are people supposed to downsize when such properties do not exist? Is it not a disgrace that the House is legislating to ask people to do something that they cannot do?

[Mr Lilley]

What I am saying is that in my constituency I encounter people who have no spare room but want one, not people who have a spare room and want to give it up. The situation may be different in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Let me now move on the point that I really want to make, which relates to the Lords amendment dealing with Child Support Agency charges. I am reluctant to discuss the Child Support Agency, as I was the hapless Secretary of State who had to introduce it after it was legislated for by my predecessor. Discretion being the better part of valour, I always delegated the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whose emollient manner proved the text in Proverbs that a soft answer turneth away wrath. I kept as distant from it as I could.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

I am also reluctant to take issue with the Lords unnecessarily. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I found that from time to time the Lords would propose amendments to legislation that I had introduced. At first I was shocked that anyone could think that my legislation could be improved in any way, but when I listened to what was said by the Lords in general and the bishops in particular, I usually found that it contained an element of truth. There was something worth listening to, even if I could not take on board everything that they proposed. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to them, has modified the charging structure, and has taken their points on board. However, she is probably right not to adopt the whole principle of what the other place suggests.

I am not entirely persuaded of the Lords’ case, because I think that it is right in principle to charge for a costly service, and it is right that the people who principally benefit from it should pay an element of it in the form of a charge, rather than our leaving the entire cost to the other party or the taxpayer. It is right in principle, too, that wherever possible we encourage voluntary agreements, rather than reliance on state-funded bureaucracy, because voluntary agreements, where possible, are better, and because that reduces the load on an over-extended bureaucracy that has never been able to cope with the load that it has; it is better that it focuses on the most obdurate cases.

It is right in principle to charge both parents, as it is not possible, even though their lordships’ amendment implies that it is, to distinguish who is the goody and who the baddy.

[Kate Green]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will let the hon. Lady make her own points in due course. We may reach our own judgments on who is right and who is wrong, but we cannot make the agency decide that. Both parents will benefit from an arrangement reached by the CSA, and it is right that it should make that arrangement.

I noticed that there were an awful lot of lawyers on the voting lists in the House of Lords. Lawyers do not say, “We won’t charge you if you’re right; we’ll only charge you if you’re wrong. We won’t charge you if you’re the aggrieved party; we’ll only charge the other party.” They should accept that similar rules apply to charging by the CSA.

Finally, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, now that child support is an addition to a family’s income, rather than it simply being about getting back the taxpayers’ money—I am not sure that it was right to make that move—it is sensible that there should be a charge to the beneficiaries. On balance, I think that my hon. Friend the Minister was right to make the modest concession that she did to her lordships, but to stick to the principle; I am glad that she has done so.

[Kate Green]

I want to make a point on child support, and a point on the Child Poverty Act 2010 and the change that the Government are planning to make to it.

I point out that there is an inequality of bargaining power, particularly in a high-conflict situation, which means that parents with care—usually women—do not have a choice on whether to arrive at a consensual agreement. In practice, women in particular will settle for little or nothing for the sake of a quiet life because they cannot afford the fee. I particularly take exception to the idea that a parent with care who has done everything possible to reach a voluntary agreement, but who meets with a resistant, recalcitrant non-resident parent, will have to pay a fee when it is absolutely no fault of hers that she and, more to the point, her children do not get the financial support that they should.

The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) says that it is right that those who benefit from or seek to access the service should pay a fee, but it is children who are intended to benefit from a statutory system of child support. Is it right that money intended for children should be hypothecated in that way?

The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister seem to believe that it is impossible for the child support system to take a view on which parent is at fault, but in clause 138 of the Bill, that view is taken by the system, because access to the collection service is being limited to cases in which the commission has decided that maintenance will not otherwise be payable. If it is possible for the commission to make that assessment and to determine that there is no prospect of the non-resident parent making payment, how can no view be taken on whether efforts have been made to receive a voluntary payment or not?

The majority of lone parents are women and women are already typically worse off after separation or divorce whereas men are better off. The fact that those parents will now be hit with a further fee as there will be both an up-front fee and a fee for collection when that collection fails—although I welcome the fact that the fee has been cut to £20, I would like to see it at zero—means that those families on low incomes will be left with very little income.

18:45

[Maria Miller]

How does the hon. Lady suggest that the agency should decide which parent stood in the way of an agreement? Would she take the same view as was taken in the debate in the other place, which is that it would always be the non-resident parent’s fault that an agreement was not in place?

[Kate Green]

The point is that a system is being established whereby the parent with care must access the system. There will be a discussion at that point about the process by which that approach to the agency is made. There is no difficulty at all at that point in taking a decision about the responsibility and behaviour of the parent making that application. I cannot understand why the Government think that it is perfectly okay for other officials in the DWP to make decisions on whether people are making appropriate efforts to make themselves available for employment, but not for a decision to be taken on whether a parent has properly engaged in a process of seeking to reach agreement with a non-resident parent.

I also want to speak briefly about the Government’s proposal to amend the obligation on the child poverty target under the Child Poverty Act. The current obligation is for the Government to report on the progress that must be made to achieve child poverty targets—targets to which every party in this House has signed up. There will now be a far weaker requirement simply to report on proposed measures. In other words, there will be an obligation on the Government to report on what they might or might not do, but absolutely no obligation to report on whether it works or on what difference it makes. That undermines what lies at the heart of the Act, which was a genuine wish across the House in the previous Parliament to see real progress in bringing down child poverty and for every politician in this House to be accountable for that outcome.

I very much regret such a weakening of the Child Poverty Act. In future, the Government could legally produce a child poverty strategy that makes no reference to the number of children in poverty—an extremely important measure in driving progress—and has no clear goals for how the proposed actions will reduce that number. When the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the cumulative impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on other measures will be to drive up child poverty between now and 2015 and onwards to 2020, one has to wonder whether the proposal is not a rather cynical and calculating step on the part of the Government to wriggle out of an obligation that they know they are not on track to meet.

[Jenny Willott]

I want to speak quickly on under-occupancy and the Child Support Agency.

The main concern on the Liberal Democrat Benches about under-occupancy and the housing benefit proposals—as hon. Members have heard from a couple of my colleagues and from Members on both sides of the House—is about the impact on rural areas and, in particular, the Scottish islands. There is also a concern about urban areas where an active allocation policy has meant that families have been given larger houses in areas that are less popular. I appreciate that it is difficult to lay out in legislation the need to ensure that tenants are offered appropriate alternative accommodation, but it is important that we ensure that when alternative offers are made they should take into account issues such as family and support networks, which are particularly important in helping people to get back into work. Offers should also take into account the distance people will have to travel, how that will relate to the communities, the lack of public transport in rural areas and so on, as well as where people are working and how easy it is for them to commute if they are required to move.

I understand that the Government will be doing that through discretionary housing payments, but I would be grateful if the Minister would ensure that guidance making those elements very clear is provided for local authorities. I know that discretionary housing payments are ring-fenced, and that is extremely important, but it is also important that general rules taking into account a sensible approach of looking at community links and the availability of alternative accommodation, or lack thereof, are applied across the country.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Jenny Willott]

I am not going to give way.

Another concern is that it will take a while to move people and for accommodation to become available. Registered social landlords are concerned to know how long the process will take, so that they can enable a managed process. While that happens, there will be an impact on their income as arrears are likely to build up before alternative accommodation becomes available. Some RSLs have done work on this, including Riverside housing association, which is based in Merseyside. It has calculated that it will take it at least three years to move everybody around. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am having some difficulty in hearing the hon. Lady because of all the private conversations going on in the Chamber during this important debate. If hon. Members want to have private conversations, perhaps they could step outside the Chamber.

[Jenny Willott]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Will the Minister look at what an appropriate time frame would be and how long it is likely to take housing associations to move people around properties? Will she ensure that discretionary housing payments are available throughout that period so that people do not receive a large cut in their benefit while they are waiting for alternative accommodation to become available? This is a difficult issue and I know that the Government have made provision for those living in adapted accommodation and for foster carers.

[Maria Miller]

I just want to reassure my hon. Friend on a couple of points. First, we intend to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the size criteria measure, which will give her some of the information and reassurance she seeks about the impact of the changes. We will also be providing funding of £13 million to councils over four years until 2015-16 for support to tenants who wish to move.

[Jenny Willott]

I thank the Minister for that useful information, which answers in part some of the questions I was going to ask.

It would be helpful if the Government kept an eye on progress. Certain money has been put aside for adapted properties, foster carers and so on, but it would be useful to know that if other vulnerable groups or particular parts of the country are identified as a particular problem, the Government would ensure that that was taken into account in the future allocation of money and in how they look at the impact of the policy on households.

On the Child Support Agency, there is a problem with up-front costs, particularly with the gap that was originally in the proposals between the amount required from those who are working compared with that required from those on benefits. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that they are reducing the fee to £20, which will make a significant difference for a lot of households. Now, we just need to make sure that the service being provided is worth the up-front fee, which frankly it has not been in the past. I hope that we will see some progress in this area so that people will feel they are getting something for their money.

The Minister knows about a particular concern of mine, which I want to raise again today. I still have serious concern about the closing down of old cases and their transferral to the new system. I am sure that all MPs have had people come to see them in surgery with cases in which an irresponsible non-resident parent will not pay, plays the system, refuses to support their own children, and takes years to pin down until a deduction of earnings order in finally put in place. I am concerned about the impact on children of cancelling those orders and making the parent with care start the entire process again, not least because of the difficulties many have had with the CSA in the past and the lack of faith they have in the system. I would be grateful if the Minister would ensure that those cases were prioritised to ensure that when they are transferred to the new system they are properly monitored so that payment keeps flowing as much as possible and that if payment must stop it is only for a very short period so that huge arrears cannot build up, because those cases are the most likely to have a background of large arrears already.

[Mr Watts]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Willott]

I will not I am afraid.

This group of amendments is very varied and we have had a wide debate this afternoon. The Government have made improvements to the Bill, which I welcome, particularly those to the CSA fee. I hope that the Minister will take into account the points that my colleagues and I have raised, particularly on the issue of housing under-occupancy, which is probably the issue of most concern to us in the Bill. So far, I have found that Ministers have listened and taken concerns on board, and I hope they do that today because the Bill is in a much better state now than it was at the beginning of this process.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I, too, would like to address the issue of under-occupancy and say that the concerns of my local housing department, Wigan and Leigh Housing, are so strong that we have been in correspondence with Lord Freud. There are very few one-bedroom properties, private or council, in my local area, and it will take eight to 10 years to move the 1,450 to 1,800 people who, on the estimates, might want to downsize. During that period, it is estimated, on Lord Freud’s own research, that 35% of those people— [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I did ask Members of Parliament who wish to have private conversations to leave the Chamber, because those conversations are disrupting the debate. This is the second time of asking. Please listen to the debate.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

During that time, 35% of those involved are likely to end up in arrears. That is 2,540 residents, and 83% will struggle to find the extra money. A total of more than 6,000 people will find difficulty in meeting their commitments, on top of the increases in food and fuel prices, and the fact that the Government have imposed rent rises of 8% for 2012-13. What are the Government going to do? I hear the Minister say that discretionary payments will be provided until 2014, but that is not the eight to 10 years that my association says it will take for even the people who want to downsize. That association is extremely concerned that the burden will be pushed on to housing benefit, even when people move, and that hard-pressed local authorities will have even more problems.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Briefly, I want to make three points about under-occupancy and disabled people. First, I welcome the Minister’s announcement of funds to ensure that disabled people and other special cases are given the help that they need in transition. The other points that I want to make both arise from a constituent’s coming to see me. This particular family has four members, with two disabled people within it, and it needs four rooms. From the outside, someone might say that parents and two children need two or three rooms, which would give them one spare room. Absolutely not: in this case, every single room was needed, and the family was concerned that under the legislation they would be told that they had a spare room and be forced to move. I would like some reassurance on that point—that where people need all the rooms because of disability, certain rooms will not be considered spare, even if the family being of such a size might otherwise justify that decision.

[Maria Miller]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that if a disabled person has the need for an overnight carer, additional rooms can be allocated. Indeed, if there are disabled people in the house who require rooms, there will be clear support there for them to be able to have those rooms.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. On my second point, as hon. and right hon. Members know, many homes have had thousands of pounds spent on adaptations, and rightly so, for disabled people. It would not make a great deal of sense to ask people to move from a home that had had such adaptations into another home, where making such adaptations would cost plenty of money. Also, in the first home, the adaptations might have to be removed. Again, I ask for reassurance that common sense will prevail.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

If ever a piece of legislation was to demonise and penalise people who live in the social rented sector, this Bill is it, and I have listened to the debate today. My local authority in Durham has written to me to say that many thousands of families will be affected by the under-occupancy provisions, and both the local authority and the housing associations have written to say that they simply do not have enough alternative suitable housing and that it will take many years to re-house people. That means that tenants, who are already on low incomes, will have no alternative but to pay an additional sum of money—up to £50 a month—that they simply cannot afford or move into smaller, private rented accommodation if it is available, and in places like Durham it is not available.

The point that the Government must take on board is that if those people go into smaller and more expensive accommodation, that will have to be paid for from housing benefit in any case, so the whole policy is an absolute—

19:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

19:00

Division 458

Ayes: 324

---

Conservative: 276
Liberal Democrat: 48

Noes: 255

---

Labour: 240
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Clause 11

Housing costs

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Maria Miller.)

19:15

Division 459

Ayes: 310

---

Conservative: 274
Liberal Democrat: 37

Noes: 268

---

Labour: 239
Liberal Democrat: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Conservative: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 3, 4 and 26 disagreed to.

Clause 131

State pension credit: carers

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 73.—(Maria Miller.)

19:30

Division 460

Ayes: 318

---

Conservative: 273
Liberal Democrat: 45

Noes: 257

---

Labour: 237
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Liberal Democrat: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Lords amendment 73 disagreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 16, 20 to 22, 28 to 37, 78, 80, 81, 83 to 86, 88, 90 to 94, 98, 101 to 106 and 108.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;

That Chris Grayling, Stephen Crabb, Stephen Timms, Tom Blenkinsop and Jenny Willott be members of the Committee;

That Chris Grayling be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Mr Dunne.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Liverpool, the Ayes were 324 and the Noes were 212, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Nottingham, the Ayes were 320 and the Noes were 213, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Leeds, the Ayes were 322 and the Noes were 212, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Bristol, the Ayes were 321 and the Noes were 212, so the Question was agreed to.