Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
indicated assent.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
You have permission, but I ask you to leave some time for the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on securing this wide-ranging debate, which has actually been quite refreshing, because we so often get caught up in the minutiae of a clause, amendment or fine detail and it is good to get back to first principles and the context of what the Government have done over the past four years. I also enjoyed his blue-skies thinking about workplace and maternity benefits and so on. I will try to address both those issues, while providing some reflections on his idea for workplace benefits.
The context that my hon. Friend described was one where, for every £3 that the Government received, they were spending £4. There is nothing progressive or fair about saying that we will pay for a higher standard of living for ourselves now and expect our children to meet the bill. The biggest task that we faced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) said, this was one of the reasons for forming the coalition— was to provide the country with a stable Government at a time of economic crisis and to try to get the nation’s finances on an even keel, which has required a series of difficult decisions, particularly because social security spending is the biggest area of Government spending, every one of which was opposed by Labour, but only one of which it now says that it will reverse. There is a distinct lack of consistency.
I am pretty sure that the record will show—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will correct me if I am wrong—that Labour voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2013 on Second Reading. He may not recall, but I am pretty sure that Labour did—it may have voted against it on Third Reading, which is even worse. The 2013 Act introduced universal credit, so it is a bit rich to say that Labour supports universal credit when it voted against the legislation that introduced it. That shows no credibility.
The hon. Gentleman may say that Labour has been engaged in welfare reform for the past four years, but it has only said what it is against. It is against our getting the books balanced by the measures that we have taken, but the positive agenda has largely been avoided. On the odd occasion that we get a positive suggestion, it often involves spending more money, not less. A humane welfare system during a time of austerity is a challenging task. One would have hoped that the party that paints itself as progressive would have engaged constructively over the past four years in how to design such a system, but we have essentially heard nothing on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover is right that the driver of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the ministerial team have brought forward has absolutely been fiscal rectitude, but it has also been about more than that. My right hon. Friend has said—I do not think that I am revealing any secrets here—that he did not come into his present role simply to cut, but rather to reform. During difficult times, we are reforming and bringing together a fractured system. Why should people have to go to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for tax credits, to the local council for housing benefit and to the Department for Work and Pensions for income support? Why should there not be a single system? One of the fatal flaws of tax credits, which the hon. Member for Rhondda praised, is that, because the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—the previous Chancellor and then Prime Minister—wanted to pretend that it was not welfare, it was claimed that they were negative tax. They were nothing of the sort. They were social security benefits, but paid over the course of a year. People’s needs, however, arise on a weekly or monthly basis. They cannot wait for end-year reconciliation and a following-year clawback.
The beauty of universal credit is that it is real time. It meets people’s needs when they happen, rather than saying at the end of the year, “Oh, guess what? We underpaid you,” or, more often, “Guess what? We overpaid you three years ago by several thousand quid. Please may we have it back?” That shambles will be over as we introduce universal credit.
Steve Webb
I will not, because it is the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I want to respond to some of his specific ideas on workplace benefits. I agree with his goals. I absolutely agree that we need a system that is fair for women; that we need to think hard about anything in the system that makes an employer less likely to employ a woman of childbearing age; and that we clearly want the system to work for self-employed women. He has made some important points.
As the system currently works, however, 93% of the cost of statutory maternity pay is refunded to employers. In fact, more than 100% is refunded to small firms. Small firms that take on a woman who becomes pregnant and goes on maternity leave will get back all the maternity pay that they pay out, plus what is essentially a handling charge—another 3% on top. Even a large employer gets 92% or thereabouts of reimbursement.
If an employer is reluctant to take on a woman who might have a child, therefore, the pure finances should not make a huge difference. Clearly, there is a bureaucracy issue with the reclaiming and so on, and we are happy to look at whether that can be streamlined, but the basic principle is that the employers get the lion’s share of the money back. The thing that might put them off, as my hon. Friend said in his speech, is the thought, “Well, I employ this person. They might not be there in some months’ time. I might have to provide maternity cover, retraining and so on,” but however we reimburse maternity pay, that will still be a feature of the system.
I am not therefore sure that having a collectivised—I hesitate to use the word, but my hon. Friend knows what I mean—system of insurance is any different substantively for the employer. Either way, employers are getting reimbursed—the costs are being met and are not in essence falling on the employer.
My hon. Friend’s proposal is interesting and I am grateful to him for suggesting it, but one of my worries arises from something that I have learnt as a Minister. Whenever we set up a new scheme, we have new infrastructure, bureaucracy and sets of rules. If we had the levy—the at-work scheme that he described—we would have to define the new tax base, have a new levy collection mechanism, work out who was in and who was out, have appeals and all that kind of stuff. There is always a dead weight to such things. Simply setting up new infrastructure costs money. I would have to be convinced that we were getting something back for it.
In essence, my hon. Friend is proposing that, instead of the general taxpayer paying into the pot and employers handing out statutory maternity pay, which is reimbursed by the Government from the general taxpayer—the current system—we have a new levy on employers, although he recognises that he does not want a new jobs tax, so that it is offset by a reduction in something else that employers pay and the tax in that world is neutral overall. However, he then says that he wants the rate not to be some £130 a week, but to be £200 and something a week.
My hon. Friend was commendably brief, so I apologise if I misunderstood, but I was not clear where that extra money would come from. If we pay women on maternity leave double, someone must pay for it. If he does not want that to be an extra burden on firms, paying for it will simply be a tax increase. That might be the right thing to do—increasing taxes to pay for it—but it is an increase.
Charlie Elphicke
Part of the reason for raising the rate is to bring it into line with the self-employed position. Also, however, most work places have the extra maternity leave as well, yet a small number of less good employers do not top up the statutory amount. The idea is to raise the threshold, so that women on maternity leave are overall in a better position.
Steve Webb
I appreciate that my hon. Friend would like to make the scheme more generous, but my sense is that that is potentially quite a substantial cost. If we spend £2 billion already and he wants to double the rate, is that another £2 billion? I do not know. Without more detail, I could not say, but it might be a substantial cost that we have to think through.
On the important issue of self-employed women, the dilemma is that if they have chosen to be self-employed, they are paying class 2 national insurance of about £2.70 a week, while their employed sisters are paying national insurance of 12%, or whatever the rate is, as an employee, while their employer is paying another 13.8%. The best part of 25% of wages is raised in national insurance from the employed earner, while £2.70 something a week comes from the self-employed—or at class 4, depending on how much she is earning. The amount going into the system from the self-employed is vastly lower; the maternity provision for the self-employed, however, is only a bit lower for some women.
In that first six weeks, when we are on 90% of earnings, the employed earner could get more, but some self-employed women get more than their employed counterparts, because of the detail of the rules. There is an issue about some women who pay voluntary class 2 at two or three quid a week for a period of time, but then become entitled to maternity allowance running into thousands, having only put in £50 or £100 into the system. There is a worry that the system is possibly too lax in that area and we might need to think about it.
It is absolutely right that self-employed women get proper maternity provision, which is what the maternity allowance is for. Relative to what they put into the system, however, what they get out of it is a fantastic rate of return compared with an employed earner. An employed earner is putting far more in, while the employer is also putting in.
On the tax base for my hon. Friend’s idea, he proposes that all firms should contribute. Unless the self-employed are also going to contribute, they will either benefit without contributing, or we are talking about another levy on the self-employed as well. Having chosen to be self-employed, people often change, because of the lack of burdens, costs and levies of being an employed earner. We would have to think about whether we are distorting the choice between becoming an employed earner or a self-employed person if we made those changes.
I do not want to end on a discouraging note, because my hon. Friend has raised an important challenge. We do not want to be in a situation in which employers, through prejudice or for other reasons, are disinclined to employ women of childbearing age. That is clearly an important issue. We must ensure, however, that the social security system reflects the labour market as it is now and not as it was after the second world war. We need to reflect on the fact that there are growing numbers of, first, women working and, secondly, self-employed women. The Department is not currently doing work in this area, because we have our hands full with reform, but it is always good to look at such things.
Charlie Elphicke
Part of my thinking is that we are about to have a revolution with the whole concept of shared parental leave, so that issue of men versus women in the workplace will tend to blur. That might be a good time to look at reworking the system in this way, to encourage and help parents in the workplace.
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is right, and the coalition can be proud of the shared parental leave approach and for rethinking the nature of what happens after a child is born and whether it is mum, dad or a combination of the two who take time off. My hon. Friend is also right to encourage us to think outside departmental silos: the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills does parental leave, but the Department for Work and Pensions does maternity pay, and so on. He makes a welcome link. I am not convinced that his scheme is necessarily affordable, because of the additional cost involved, but he makes an important link.
I have a final word of encouragement to employers, who may be listening to our proceedings. About 10 years ago, less than half of mothers who went on maternity leave came back and worked in the same job; that figure was about 40%, but it is now 80%. The norm now for an employer who takes on a woman who goes on maternity leave is that—four times out of five—she will come back to the job for which she was trained, in which she is experienced and to which she can contribute.
Likewise, we now find that three quarters of women return to work within 12 to 18 months of having their baby. There is a norm: if someone takes on a woman of childbearing age, the odds are that she will come back to the same job within 12 to 18 months. We need to educate employers about the fact that, if they do not employ women of childbearing age, they are depriving themselves of talented people who contribute to the work force. Not employing such women is clearly a bad thing, not only from a social point of view, but from an economic point of view.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, who serves on the Select Committee now and is thinking hard about such issues, on his contribution. We have done a huge amount of reform in this Parliament, and we want to see our reforms through and deliver them, because we want our legacy to be a system that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, encourages independence, not dependence, that is fiscally responsible, but that works with the grain of people, so that those who want to work hard and get on are encouraged and enabled to do so, rather than being trapped on benefit, which was the risk of the system that we inherited.