Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
We have a long-standing position on Kashmir, which has been reiterated and followed by successive Governments, but where there are matters related to humanitarian issues we of course always look at those.
Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 987/2009) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 574/72) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Social Security Coordination (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, EEA Agreement and Swiss Agreement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We are all delighted that we are able to proceed this afternoon.
The draft regulations were laid before both Houses on 30 January, alongside the other three sets of regulations we are debating. They form a package that will enable the Government to address deficiencies in retained European Union law that will impact on the operation of the retained social security co-ordination regulations should the UK withdraw from the EU in a no-deal scenario.
Before I go into the detail of the draft regulations, it might be useful if I provide some context. The whole system of social security co-ordination across the EU relies on co-operation and reciprocity. The legal framework for that would cease in a no-deal scenario. The UK would have no means of enforcing reciprocal obligations on EU member states, and therefore cannot legislate for that when correcting deficiencies in the co-ordination regulations. We cannot force member states to co-operate with the UK or to provide the UK with information when dealing with UK benefit claims. In a no-deal scenario, member states cannot be required to apply the rules contained in the co-ordination regulations to individuals moving to and from the UK.
The draft statutory instruments will allow the UK to apply the current social security co-ordination regulations on a unilateral basis to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no-deal scenario. They are intended to ensure that the UK has a functioning statute book by fixing deficiencies in retained EU law in line with the power provided by section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
As hon. Members are aware, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill was considered recently in Committee—a number of colleagues present served on the Bill Committee—and is being prepared for Report. The draft statutory instruments are necessary to ensure that we are ready for exit day. The Bill will provide the legislative framework that is required to deliver future policy at the appropriate time.
The legislation that the draft instruments will amend is lengthy, but it can be split broadly into three categories. The first category is data and information sharing. The co-ordination regulations require EU member states to exchange information through specific procedures laid down in the regulations. The data shared are used to establish which member state is responsible for the payment of benefits, to take into account contributions made in other member states when deciding benefit entitlement, and to avoid overlapping benefit payments.
The draft statutory instruments will ensure that the UK can continue to share data with member states when they are applying the co-ordination regulations, and we will continue to work closely with the EU27 so that the first port of call for all contribution queries will be the appropriate administration in a member state. However, if the member state is unable to provide information, the instruments will enable us to ask claimants to provide, within a reasonable timeframe, the relevant information to allow the UK to determine if it is competent in respect of benefits.
Secondly, the instruments remove provisions in the retained co-ordination regulations that will be inoperable if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. For example, the co-ordination regulations provide for a number of bodies at EU level to deal with administrative and technical issues or disputes arising from the application of the social security co-ordination regulations, the administrative commission being the main one. The instruments remove references to those bodies on the basis that they will be inoperable if the UK withdraws from the EU in a no-deal scenario. If disputes arise post exit date, the UK will continue to use the same rules as it does now to determine whether it is the responsible country for making payments. However, any challenges will be resolved through domestic routes.
Finally, the instruments deal with applicable legislation. The co-ordination regulations state that an individual shall be subject to only one EU member state’s legislation at a time. The arrangements rely on co-ordination between member states to operate effectively. The instruments amend the co-ordination regulations to maintain the status quo on when the UK legislation does and does not apply.
The regulations are being made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal inoperabilities and other deficiencies that will arise in retained EU law on exit, so that the converted law continues to operate effectively post exit. The amendments are in line with both the policy and the legal intent of the Act. The use of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation through so-called Henry VIII powers was debated at length during the passage of the Act.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As the Minister says, we debated some of these points when we served together on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee a couple of weeks ago. May I ask him about the use of Henry VIII powers? As he knows, clause 5 of the Bill has very wide Henry VIII powers in relation to changing social security rules. When the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, could clause 5 be used to make amendments to the regulations that we are debating in this Committee?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady acknowledges, we debated this issue, in particular the Henry VIII powers, in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee. The process for any changes will be affirmative and they will therefore be debated and voted on in Parliament. I made that point in the Bill Committee, and no doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter again on Report.
The statutory instruments are part of a wider legislative package that my Department is laying before Parliament. We have laid SIs relating to private pensions and the European job mobility portal, which is more commonly known as EURES, and we have made consequential amendments to domestic legislation. The Department for Work and Pensions has carried out no formal consultation on the regulations, as they address deficiencies in retained EU law and there is no material impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. My officials nevertheless held informal discussions last year with the Social Security Advisory Committee on the instruments, which focused on both technical issues and policy considerations.
In conclusion, the regulations are an essential part of the legislative programme and have been laid in preparation for a potential no-deal scenario. They are needed so that the social security co-ordination system can function, even unilaterally, and in order to retain the ability of the Department for Work and Pensions to make payments to claimants and to determine claims. Not proceeding with this legislation would result in a statute book that did not function correctly, and in not doing so we would be failing to protect citizens’ rights. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Glasgow South West for their speeches and their constructive approach to today’s proceedings. I start by saying that this Committee is about fixing deficiencies in a set of regulations, rather than a detailed debate about Brexit. Many of those take place already in the main Chamber. I see that the urgent question is now over, but no doubt there will be lots more debate on the wider issues around Brexit.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale said that there was incredible uncertainty for individuals. I hold out the hand of friendship to him and all colleagues on the Opposition Benches. If he wants to get rid of that incredible uncertainty, he should support the deal that is on the table when it returns to Parliament. As I said, I am sure there will be further discussion on that matter.
A large number of very good questions were raised by the hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Glasgow South West. I will try to get through as many of those as I can. If I fail to answer any question of a material nature, I am very happy for my officials to write subsequently to Members. I will start with state pension uprating, which has garnered a lot of interest. As Members will know, it has been announced that state pensions for pensioners currently living in the EU will be uprated for 2019-20. We wish to continue uprating pensions beyond that, but we will take decisions in light of whether, as we would hope and expect, reciprocal arrangements are in place with the EU.
Kate Green
I note what the Minister says, and I understand the point he is making about reciprocity, but the Government could choose unilaterally to uprate pensions after 2020. That has been the case since at least 1996, when the then Department of Social Security made it clear in a memorandum.
Alok Sharma
I note what the hon. Lady is saying, and I know she is an expert in welfare and social security matters, but I can only repeat what I have said, which is that we have made a commitment for 2019-20. We want to see a reciprocal arrangement in place thereafter. No doubt these discussions will continue.
To return to the point about pensions that was raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, I want to make it absolutely clear that the International Pensions Centre in Newcastle will guide claimants through any processes as required.
Both hon. Gentlemen who spoke raised the issue of protections and questioned the use of the phrase “as far as possible” in the explanatory notes. All I say is that we can only legislate to protect rights to benefits that are paid by the UK where we are maintaining the status quo; as hon. Members will appreciate, we cannot amend retained EU law to protect UK nationals receiving benefits from member states.
Both hon. Gentlemen asked what evidence individuals would be required to produce in order to confirm their contributions to the EU. The UK Government will obviously consider evidence on a case-by-case basis. We would expect the claimant to provide wage slips or proof of contributions made, and the Government will provide support to claimants where any additional information is required from them. On the specific point about the related costs, one of the issues that has come up before is the cost of any translation or notarisation of documents that are not in English. The Department for Work and Pensions currently receives documentation from all 27 EU member states and, where necessary, we translate those documents. The claimants would not need to pay to translate or notarise documents.
With regard to the issue of provisional payments and dispute resolution, which was raised by both hon. Gentlemen who spoke, the current provisional payments system operates where there is a dispute between member states of the European Union. Such disputes are resolved following a decision by a mediation body of the administration commission of the European Union. As I said in my opening remarks, the UK will no longer be a member state or part of that body in a no-deal scenario, which is why that provision has been removed. We will continue to use the same rules that are used now to determine whether the UK is competent. DWP and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have only ever made provisional payments twice. They use all available data to ensure that disputes over which country is responsible for paying benefits do not arise, and individuals will be able to appeal any decision on benefit entitlement using domestic appeal routes.
The restoration of reciprocity in a no-deal scenario was raised. I have addressed this point, and I reiterate that the UK is seeking discussions with member states on social security co-ordination arrangements in a no-deal scenario. We are exploring options to protect past social security contributions as well. As Members know, an agreement has been reached with Ireland. The UK Government have announced an agreement with Ireland on social security, guaranteeing continued access to the state pension and benefits of UK and Irish citizens and their qualifying family members when in the other’s state.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned the European Commission regulations. I note that the Commission’s proposals for contingency measures, which cover all member states and the UK, are more limited in scope than those set out in the Government’s policy paper that was published on 6 December 2018, entitled “Citizens’ Rights—EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU”. The Government have expressed concern with the EU that the coverage of the regulations is minimal in terms of social security rights, and that it does not match the UK’s legislation.
The issue of equal treatment was raised in relation to article 4 of regulation 883/2004. The removal of the principle does not have a practical impact on the rights of EU nationals who wish to access the UK’s social security schemes.
On impact assessments and related costs, the reason an impact assessment was not prepared is that the changes we are discussing are technical in nature and do not make any policy changes. As such, they do not give rise to any new cost or to any financial or economic impact beyond the status quo.
Kate Green
It may be very marginal, but there is a potential cost both to individuals and their employers and former employers in trying to find evidence that in the past could have been obtained automatically through reciprocal arrangements from other EU states. They may now find themselves having to track that down and having to pay to find, copy and produce it in a form that is acceptable to the Department.
Alok Sharma
I note the hon. Lady’s point but, as I said, the impact assessment was in relation to any material changes. We do not believe that there are any, as these are merely technical changes to retained law.
A point was raised about data-sharing. We will of course continue to work closely with the EU so that the first port of call for contribution queries is other member states. The instruments include provisions to ensure that the UK can continue to share data with EU member states when they are applying the co-ordination regulations. If I have not been able to answer any questions—
Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for her amendment to clause 5. She made a wide-ranging speech, which covered many of the points that might be raised when we consider clause 5 stand part, and I will try to address some of the points that she made. I put it on record that whatever our political differences, I have always thought of the hon. Lady as one of the most courteous and considered Members in the House, and for that we should all be grateful.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton made some interesting remarks. Before I discuss amendment 26, I say generally that if colleagues want to give citizens certainty, the best way of doing so is to support the withdrawal agreement and the deal that will be returning to the House. Many sincere views are expressed, and people are concerned for citizens—I completely get that—but the best way of providing certainty is to support the deal.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank him for his remarks a few moments ago. There would be certainty during the transition period, but that would not really give certainty beyond 2020, would it? As I have already pointed out, for example, we do not know the Government’s intentions in relation to pensions uprating, whether or not there is a deal after 2020.
Alok Sharma
Let me come on to those points. I am sure that we will have a chance to discuss them further.
On amendment 26, I note the hon. Lady’s assertion that the provisions in clause 5 could be used to remove the ability of UK and EU nationals to aggregate periods of work, insurance or residence in other member states, in order to meet domestic entitlements for contributory benefits and pensions. I reassure her that although future policy on social security co-ordination is subject to further consideration, the Government are committed to exploring options to protect past social security contributions made in the EU and the UK as part of our ongoing discussions with the EU and member states.
The Government have always been clear that protecting the rights of citizens is a priority. It is important that UK and EEA nationals in the EU who are currently receiving aggregated pensions and benefits have those payments protected. I therefore make it clear that the Government will not retrospectively remove the entitlements of UK and EU nationals living in the UK to UK contributory benefits.
I further reassure the hon. Lady that, in a deal scenario, the power in clause 5 will not be exercised to remove or reduce commitments made in relation to the individuals within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement protects rights and entitlements, including aggregation and uprating, in accordance with EU legislation for those EU and UK nationals covered by the withdrawal agreement. The exercise of the power will be subject to further discussion with the EU—for example, in relation to a future agreement. However, it is important that the Government have the provisions in the clause to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the European Union, either if we are in a no-deal scenario or if we do not have a future agreement.
As the hon. Lady acknowledged in her remarks, the nature of the current social security co-ordination framework means that a multilateral partnership must be in place in order for it to function effectively. Aspects of the current system, including aggregation, rely on reciprocity from the EU27 and are underpinned by data sharing between the member states. I fully understand her position, which is that it would be preferable for a system of aggregation of contributions to continue. Indeed, in the UK Government’s publication on our proposal for the future relationship between the UK and the European Union, we set out exactly that ambition. We explained that we will seek reciprocal arrangements around some defined elements of social security co-ordination. That could cover aggregation rules.
However, without reciprocity, there are limits to what the UK Government can do by ourselves. Although the UK has powers in domestic legislation to pay state pensions and benefits, if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, we could not bind other member states to recognise contributions made in the UK. Accepting this amendment could prevent the UK Government from responding effectively to certain scenarios following our exit from the European Union.
Kate Green
I accept what the Minister says about the nature of reciprocity, but it is within the Government’s power to make a unilateral commitment to the ongoing uprating of pensions beyond 2020. That has been clear since at least 1996, in relation to a memorandum issued by the then Department of Social Security.
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I will come on to the point about pensions shortly.
The titles of regulation 883 cited in amendment 26 cover a broader range of issues than just aggregation rights. They cover a wide range of social security co-ordination provisions, ranging from definitions of key concepts, the scope of the regime, prohibition of residence requirements for certain benefits and the export of cash sickness benefits. Accepting an amendment that prevented the Government from removing those provisions would go much further than the hon. Lady’s stated intention of preventing the Government from making changes to aggregation policy. Doing so could remove the Government’s ability to reflect our future relationship with the EU on a wide range of policy issues. Furthermore, the amendment would prevent the removal of the listed titles, but it would not prevent their modification or amendment. With respect, therefore, it does not achieve its purported objective.
Let me address some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised, which were all perfectly valid. She made a point about the inclusion of universal credit in the social security co-ordination system, and she said that it was not currently part of that system. She will know that that is because universal credit is treated as social assistance, and therefore will not be affected by the clause.
The hon. Lady made a point about healthcare. It is not our intention to use this clause to make changes to healthcare policy. Any such changes are a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, and they will be dealt with in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
Q
Kalba Meadows: It may well change behaviour in that people would have no choice. But it is a very difficult thing to even contemplate.
Kate Green
Q
Kalba Meadows: To move back to the UK.
Universal Credit: Managed Migration
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend, who works incredibly hard for his constituents. He is right to highlight that universal credit works extremely well for the vast majority of people, and of course we wish his constituent well, but I accept that we need to get this right for everyone. That is why, when it comes to managed migration, we will have a test phase.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether the regulations he proposes to bring forward before July will cover only those encompassed by the pilot, or whether they will be the comprehensive managed migration regulations? Will they also deal with the severe disability premium?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady takes a great deal of interest in this area, so she will have seen the regulations that are currently before the House. If I may repeat myself, we have committed to holding a debate on any affirmative regulations, we have said we will meet our commitment to those in receipt of severe disability premium, and we have said we will ensure that the regulations are in place so we can start the test phase in July 2019.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend has highlighted an important point, which, of course, the Opposition never want to talk about. Under this Conservative Government, 18 new employment records have been set since 2015, underlining the confidence that employers have in our policies. That confidence would evaporate if that lot got anywhere near government.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Getting people into work is a good thing, but there is no point in trapping them in in-work poverty. About two thirds of children in poverty are growing up in working households. What is the Minister doing to address that?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady has raised an important point, but I should point out that there has been no particular increase in in-work poverty. Indeed, 1 million fewer people, and 300,000 fewer children, are living in absolute poverty. Ultimately, however, this is about helping people into work, and, as we have said, we are doing an enormous amount through universal credit to ensure that that happens.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Under managed migration, claimants of legacy benefits will effectively have to apply anew for universal credit, and some vulnerable claimants may not realise and lose transitional protection as a result. Will the Minister look again at how those claimants can ensure that they retain their transitional protection?
Alok Sharma
The Secretary of State, other Ministers and I are having detailed engagement with the various health groups that the hon. Lady is talking about. We are, of course, looking at the recommendations made by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green
Alok Sharma
I know that my hon. Friend has expressed views on this several times in the House. My Department is working closely with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to prepare the call for evidence. Once it is published, he and all Members with an interest will have an opportunity to set out their views.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last month, the all-party group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which I chair, met to discuss unauthorised encampments and possible positive solutions. We heard from a representative of the National Police Chiefs Council that the police do have adequate powers, and that unlawful trespass is not the answer and had not worked in Ireland. Will the Minister meet the all-party group and representatives of the community to talk about some of the positive solutions that could help to address this issue?
Gypsies and Travellers and Local Communities
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures that I am citing are collected in January, but also in July, and I would be happy to share them with him. The fundamental point is that every incursion and illegal encampment causes problems, and that is what matters to constituents and communities up and down the country.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Minister acknowledge that prevention is better than cure? What can be done to ensure that there are more authorised sites available, particularly in areas of the country that are feeling the pressure of unauthorised sites?
Alok Sharma
Prevention is, of course, better than cure, but it is also important that all communities abide by the law.
Local authorities and the police already have extensive powers to take action. Councils have a range of powers available to them. They can very quickly obtain a possession order to remove trespassers from land, and they can apply to the courts for pre-emptive injunctions that prevent unauthorised camping in a defined area. The police also have powers under sections 61 and 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Grenfell Rehousing
Debate between Lord Sharma and Kate Green
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, Sir Martin Moore-Bick has already met some of the victims and survivors, and we need to allow him to set out the full scope of his inquiry.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As cladding is being removed from high-rise blocks around the country, those blocks are losing the insulation protection that it offers. If that cladding has not been replaced by the time winter comes, it may be a struggle to keep those homes warm and dry. What assessment are Ministers making now of the need to have those buildings properly insulated by the winter, so that people are warm, dry and safe?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, where the cladding is coming down, new, non-combustible cladding is planned to go up.