Jobs and Work

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of people wish to speak in the debate and that there is limited time. I should also point out that the Front-Bench speeches have taken well over an hour, so if Members wish to remonstrate about the shortness of time, they should address their remonstrations not to the Chair, but to those on the Front Benches. I have to impose a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As I indicated earlier, there are a great many colleagues still wishing to speak; indeed there are 40 of them. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes.

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am almost sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady, because her intervention was so long. My time is being massively eroded, and I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will give me a few more minutes to address the issues that have been raised.

The consultants and GPs tell us that the clinical evidence taken at the assessment is vital. When they carry out an assessment, they are not there to provide a diagnosis; they are there to assess capacity. They can do that only by using an evidence base. One of the big issues under DLA was that only 6% of applicants ever got a face-to-face assessment. We are at 97% now with PIP. I agree that that is fundamentally too high, as I said to the Select Committee.

I have also attended tribunals to see what is happening during the last part of the DLA claims that are now coming through. I listened to the cases, and I agreed that some of them should never have come before the tribunal in the first place. Under PIP, we have mandatory reconsideration; that was never the case before. I have now asked my officials to go through the approximately 30,000 cases waiting to go to tribunal. We will mandatorily assess all of them, to try to prevent so many from going to tribunal. There is a lot of work to be done, but we must do as much as we can, together with the charities and the representative bodies.

Residential colleges were mentioned earlier. I agree that they do excellent work, but the college principals know that I cannot pay for places that are not taken up. That is what was happening under the previous contract. There were residential places with nobody in residence, and we had day people on day courses. We have worked with the colleges on that, and we will ensure that we have the necessary capacity. Interventions have eroded my time, so I shall now listen to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has to say; I think I know what it will be. Please, let us work together to ensure that the system is better for everyone we represent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call Mr McDonnell to wind up the debate, I would like to congratulate the Minister on behalf of the House on his appointment today to the Privy Council.

Job Insecurity

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He knows that that is not a point of order, but a point of debate. We are in the middle of the debate. If the shadow Minister wishes to take an intervention, he can do so. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attempt to make a speech later, he can do so, but that is not a point of order.

[Mr Umunna]

I am not sure that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) is having a very good day.

Several hon. Members have already raised the issue of zero-hours contracts, and let me explain how we would stop their exploitative use. We would prevent employers from insisting that people on zero-hours contracts are available to work even when there is no guarantee that they will be given any work. We would prohibit zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one employer. We would prevent the misuse of zero-hours contracts. When, in practice, employees regularly work a certain number of hours a week, they are entitled to a contract that reflects the reality of their regular hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary language to describe our coalition partners as “nasty”? There has been no proof of that during the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point of order. Of course it is always wise for Members to moderate their language. I make no ruling on whether the word “nasty” is appropriate, but it is certainly not a bad enough word for me to insist on its withdrawal.

[Vince Cable]

The scheme cannot have the damaging effects that have been described if companies do not take it up. We will wait and see how many of this modest number of inquiries actually lead to schemes being established. If there are large numbers and they do have the damaging effects suggested, I will retract some of the comments I have been making, but I think the problem is likely to be that, far from damaging workers and far from leading to large-scale tax avoidance, it remains a niche scheme chosen by a handful of companies as an experiment, and as such it can do no harm.

Let me conclude by dealing with what I think should have been the meat of the debate: industrial strategy. It is important that we discuss that. It is very important that the shape and sustainability of the recovery be maintained. I would argue that what we have done is something that has not been done for decades. We are trying to get industry around the table, talking to each other, thinking about partnership, thinking about long-term policy. That has not happened for a very long time. Business is very enthusiastic about it. Trade unions are very enthusiastic about it, too. They want to join our various sector groups.

When we do get round to debating this subject properly, I will be interested in hearing how the Opposition want to develop it. Let us take one or two examples. Although we are pressed for cash, we have put £1 billion into the aerospace industry, co-financing the private sector, and we have put £500 million into the car industry. We are doing similar things for agribusiness and other sectors. Is the shadow Secretary of State proposing to enhance that, or change or develop it in any way? We would all be interested to know.

We have rolled out a system of catapults which are attracting a great deal of positive attention from both the research community and business. We have nine of them, and we would obviously like to take this further. If we had the endorsement and support of the Opposition, that would be a great help. I would be interested to know where they want to go with it.

We have introduced radical reforms of training and apprenticeships, as a result of which we are now getting big improvements in quantity and quality. Again, I have never heard any feedback from the Opposition on where they want to go with vocational training.

These are the issues we need to be talking about. This is how we are going properly to sustain the genuine and real recovery we have at the moment. I look forward to having those debates in future, but for tonight I recommend that my colleagues vote against this motion.

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps we will get a chance to discuss the Employment Opportunities Bill later. As the name suggests, it gives employment opportunities to people who would not otherwise have them. I hope that my hon. Friend has looked at the Bill. To assert, as he has, that the minimum wage cannot have any impact on jobs is to ignore the level at which the minimum wage is set. That is why the Low Pay Commission was set up to look at the level and make recommendations on the minimum wage. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be concerned if we start discussing the Employment Opportunities Bill in detail at this stage—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is accustomed to making long speeches in this Chamber on a Friday. I am listening very carefully to the content of his speech and to the information he provides to make sure that what he says is entirely related to the Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill. I would be surprised to discover that the hon. Gentleman wished to talk out his own Bill, so I am sure that he will stick very strictly to the matter in hand.

[Mr Chope]

You know as well as anyone, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, ultimately, each Member of Parliament has to be held accountable for his own actions. If I am still speaking at 2.30, I will obviously not expect this Bill to get its Second Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman is still speaking and in order at 2.30.

[Mr Chope]

Apart from anything else, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to exclude my hon. Friends from speaking in support of the Bill.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘25 July 2012’ and insert ‘10 February 2010’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, leave out ‘25 July 2012’ and insert ‘10 February 2010’.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert

‘but shall not be less than 100 per cent. of the average damages recovered in civil mesothelioma cases.’.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 5, at end insert

‘but shall not be less than 80 per cent of the average civil compensation recovered by mesothelioma claimants.’.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 5, at end insert

‘and shall be met by a levy on insurers of not less than 3 per cent of gross written premium during any given period.’.

[Mr Brown]

Before I explain the purpose of the three amendments that stand in my name, I want to make two more general points.

First, let me identify myself and my constituents with the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). My right hon. Friend has been a champion of my constituents as well as his own in all his work on issues relating to mesothelioma. Like many other Members whose constituencies are hot spots for the condition, I greatly appreciate the work that he has done over the years in trying to help those who suffer from it, and, indeed, his work more generally as a widely respected parliamentarian. I know that the whole House wishes him a speedy recovery.

Secondly, let me pay tribute to the Minister for managing to take the Bill so far forward—further forward than I managed to take the measure that I attempted to introduce when I was a Minister in the Department, which was slightly more wide ranging and was certainly brought to a halt more effectively. It is with some admiration that I pay my small tribute to the Minister—or, rather, my large tribute, for why should quantum be an issue? Actually, it is the issue in this part of the Bill, but we shall come to that shortly. I know of the pressures that the Minister has faced externally and within the broader Government over this issue, and I think he has done extremely well to get us to where we are now.

Having said that, I should explain why I tabled my three amendments. There is no position that cannot be improved with a little bit of thought, and in any event it is right to test the arguments. The amendments seek to increase the share of the amount that the arbitrator gives the victim that actually reaches the victim, and to give the legislation an earlier start date—2010 rather than 2012.

Let me address the compensation issues first. My amendment says compensation should be 100% of what is due. Nobody in the discussions we had on Second Reading and in Committee has made a moral case against giving somebody 100% of what they are entitled to. In fact, some very powerful speeches were made in this place on Second Reading on precisely this point, and I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) who pointed out that within a few months the victims are going to be 100% dead, so 100% compensation does not seem unreasonable. After all, the employers paid 100% of the premiums and they thought they enjoyed 100% of the cover. Had there been recourse in law, they would have got 100% of the damages. In not one of these cases has the defence argued that to some extent the victim contributed to his or her own misfortune, and, when we think about it, what contribution could they have made that led to their own misfortune—breathing? It is a ridiculous contention. The victims are not to blame and therefore they should not have their compensation cut.

Food Banks

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate. It will also be obvious that the time available is very limited. I will therefore have to impose an initial time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but I must—[Interruption.] Order. I must warn hon. Members that if everybody takes four minutes, plus the time allowed for interventions, only about a third of those who wish to speak will be able to do so. One would hope that Members, out of consideration for others, might take less than four minutes where at all possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why did her Government refuse to allow jobcentres to give out food bank vouchers? It was this Government who changed that. May I also—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Robert Halfon]

May I also mention to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear the truth, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should make a brief intervention, but it must be heard by the House. He may now make his intervention, but briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

No.

To suggest that people can just arrive at a food bank asking for free food shows how out of touch Ministers are with the way food banks work. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot hear the shadow Minister, but she is speaking perfectly clearly. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members should have the courtesy to listen to the hon. Lady moving the motion.

[Andrew Selous]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House by saying benefit delay was rising when it is actually falling by 6%.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for debate, and I have no doubt that he will be able to put that point later in the debate. The more time we spend on points of order and on me quietening people down, the less time there will be for Members to make the points they wish to make.

[Maria Eagle]

To suggest that people can just arrive at a food bank asking for free food shows just how out of touch Ministers are with the way food banks work. The Trussell Trust is very clear: over 50% of referral agents are statutory agencies, and referrers include doctors, social workers, school liaison officers and citizens advice bureaux advisers. These professionals make sure that people turning to food banks are in genuine crisis.

People are using food banks not out of choice, but out of necessity, yet Ministers still refuse to listen. The Education Secretary has claimed that people are turning to food banks because

“they are not best able to manage their finances.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]

How insulting, patronising and out of touch is that comment.

There is a very straightforward way for Ministers to clear up any doubt about the reasons for the increase in reliance on food aid: they can finally publish the official report into the growth of food banks, which was delivered to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June. That report has now been sat on by Ministers for six months, longer than it took to produce. In April, the then Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), said:

“The conclusions of this work will be available in the summer and published on the Government's website.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 821W.]

Now Ministers say the report is still being subjected to

“an appropriate review and quality assurance process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 1293.]

I bet it is. It is very clear that the Government are determined to hide the true scale of the growth of food banks. They are right to be embarrassed by the truth, but they should come clean, so I say to the Minister today that she should finally force her fellow Ministers in DEFRA to publish this report.

Even without the Government’s hidden report, the reasons for the rise in food bank use is clear: it is the cost of living crisis facing householders up and down the country; it is because even as we finally see some growth in parts of the economy after three years of failure, that growth is not being shared fairly. Last week’s Office for National Statistics figures were clear: average earnings have risen by less than the rate of inflation for the fifth year running. Figures published alongside the autumn statement showed that real wages will have fallen by 5.8% by the end of this Parliament. Under this Government, we have seen the longest period of falling real wage values since records began, and the consequence is that working people are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

No.

The number of those paid less than a living wage is up by 1.4 million since 2009, to 4.8 million workers in the UK last year—[Interruption.] No, I have been very clear that I am not giving way again in this debate. [Interruption.] As pay packets shrink in real terms, prices continue to rise, and they rise faster than wages. That has happened for 41 of the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not understand why there are conversations going on all around the Chamber. [Interruption.] I can see where they are taking place. If Members are here to take part in the debate, they must listen to the hon. Lady who is proposing the motion.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As pay packets shrink in real terms, prices continue to rise, and they are rising faster than wages. They have done that for 41 of the 42 months that this Prime Minister has been in Downing street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I will continue a little, because the truth must be heard.

While Labour was in office, it gradually wore away the financial strength of this country, eroding its savings and savings culture, and then it crashed the economy. Gas bills doubled, council tax doubled and fuel duty went up 12 times. The only things that grew under Labour were debt and overspending. It left the UK with—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is not a football match. Do not shout at the Minister. She will give way when she is ready.

[Esther McVey]

It is only fair that I set the scene before taking interventions.

Labour left the UK with the highest structural deficit of any major advanced country. It wiped £112 billion off the economy, leaving a debt of about £3,000 to every household. Personal debt reached a staggering £1.5 trillion. That whirl of living beyond our means—that increase in prices, debt and unaffordability—had to come to a stop. It came to a stop suddenly and, sadly, we are all paying the price. The Government are paying the price, charities are paying the price, businesses are paying the price and individuals are paying the price as we try to balance not only our household budgets, but the budget of the country. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is no point in having a debate if nobody listens to the person who is speaking. Be quiet.

[Esther McVey]

As I have said, I will take interventions when I have set out what has happened.

Let us be honest. The Trussell Trust saw what was happening in 2000. It looked at the evolving problem that was caused by personal debt, overspending and people living beyond their means. It set up the first food bank in that year and the food bank network in 2004. The number of food banks had grown tenfold by 2010. Most startlingly, when those food banks started, Labour did not want to know why. When they grew tenfold, Labour did not want to know why.

When the Labour councillor who had set up the Trussell Trust came for support and said, “Allow me to signpost food banks in Jobcentre Plus”, Labour said no. Labour wanted it to be its little secret because, beneath the veneer of what seemed like a sound economy, it was crumbling. It knew what was going to happen. Sadly and shamefully, there has been no investigation by the Opposition. They do not want to know what went on. It took my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to get the food banks signposted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

We have hardship payments and support payments. We have put in a new element of reconsideration to make the process quicker. The speed of the transaction for getting benefits has increased by six percentage points.

Let us not get away from how this started under Labour. What each and every one of us does is important. I have heard nothing from Opposition Members about the news that, because of our welfare-to-work programme, 30 million people are in jobs today. We know that under Labour, the number of households with nobody working doubled—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are too many people standing up. The Minister is not taking interventions at this point. Allow her to make her speech.

[Esther McVey]

In Labour’s last term in office, the claimant count went up by 82%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I do indeed. If one thing came out of the disastrous years that made our country more vulnerable because of the disastrous finances of the Labour Government it was the fact that not only are this Government doing more to get people into work—I will say it again, although I heard no positive sounds from the Labour Benches before: there are 30 million people in work—and that businesses have helped to support people and have taken them on, but that the community has come together to support one another. That must be a positive move. [Hon. Members: “ Give way!”] No, I will make a little more progress.

Let us go back to the report that Labour obviously did not want, so as to keep it as its little secret. Labour Members did not want to look into why the Trussell Trust was set up and has grown exponentially, but we did. We looked into the matter, and it is right that we give an accurate report. It was the Labour party that brought us the dodgy dossier and never wanted verification of the facts—why let the facts get in the way of a tale of fiction? It is only correct that we get our facts right and deliver this report at the right time, as we are doing. As we have said, it is positive; people are reaching out to support others in church groups, community groups, local supermarkets and other groups. That is a fact—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot hear the Minister.

[Esther McVey]

In the UK, it is right to say that more people are visiting food banks, as we would expect. [Hon. Members: “ Give way!”] No. Times are tough and we all have to pay back the £1.5 trillion of personal debt, which spiralled under Labour. We are all trying to live within our means, change the gear, and ensure we are paying back all the debt that we saw under Labour.

It is important to look at what is happening around the world. The UK has a population of 63 million and 60,000 people are visiting food banks according to the Trussell Trust. In Germany, however, with a population of 82 million, there are 1.5 million users of food banks. Canada has population of 35 million, and there are 830,000 monthly users of the Trussell Trust. [Interruption.] We must put everything in context and look at what happened, whether that is the overspending and not being able to balance the books from 2002, or the financial crash of 2007. [Interruption.] We must look at how much we have done to balance and rebalance the economy, and get it on a stable footing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House should pause for a moment, calm down and listen to the Minister. Everyone will have a turn to make their point in due course. [Interruption.] Order. I call the Minister.

[Esther McVey]

It is startling that the shadow Minister took only three interventions. We all listened then, so it would be appropriate to listen to the facts now. That is where we go wrong. We do not listen to what is going on.

The coalition Government were brought in to solve the mess that Labour got us in. Nothing more clearly shows what we have done to support people than what we have done on jobs. The best way to help people to get out of poverty is to get people into work. Children are three times more likely to be in poverty if they are in a workless household. Labour is the party that gave us workless households.

I will say this again because the Opposition still have not acknowledged it. Thirty million people are in jobs today. That means that a further 1.25 million people are in jobs since the general election. The Opposition told us—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If hon. Members do not keep quiet and listen to the Minister, she will have to repeat her speech over and over again—[Interruption.] Order. If the House keeps interrupting me, I will call order again and again, and very few hon. Members will have the chance to make the speeches they have prepared. Let us have silence. I call the Minister.

[Esther McVey]

We have 1.25 million more people in jobs than we had at the election. We know that the best way out of poverty is to be in a job. The Opposition said that 1 million more people would be out of work. They were wrong. They said there would be a double-dip and treble-dip recession. They were wrong. They are also wrong on food banks.

That is why we must compare Labour’s legacy of a debt-fuelled boom with what this Government have done. What are this Government doing and how have we supported people? Under Labour, 5 million were on out-of-work benefits, the number of households where nobody worked doubled, and 2 million children lived in workless households. That is what we do not want—[Interruption]—but it is Opposition Members who say, “Shame.”

How are the Government helping families? We want to ensure that work always pays. That is why we have brought in universal credit—to ensure that 3 million people are better off. That is what the Government are doing.

Let us be honest. One thing the Opposition do not understand is that disposable income is different from income. What have we done to support people with disposable income?

[Esther McVey]

The Opposition spokeswoman gave way three times. We will finish what we are saying. I appreciate that Back Benchers will have only four minutes, but, should there be time, I will give way.

What have the Government done? We have taken 2.7 million people out of tax. We have cut tax for 25 million people, giving them, on average, £700 extra a year. We have stopped Labour’s fuel and petrol price increases, saving families £300 and someone in a business with a van £1,000. All of that is key. The winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments have stayed, and we have given tax breaks to young people who are going to be in a job. That is what we have done to support people. When we talk about what happened under what Government, what happened when and how the Trussell Trust started, and when we talk about the removal of the spare room subsidy—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members must not shout at the Minister. It is clear that she does not intend to give way, and she is not going to give way if you shout at her. Please be quiet, allow the Minister to finish her speech and then everyone will have a chance to make their contribution.

[Esther McVey]

The Trussell Trust started under Labour—it hid that away—and the removal of the spare room subsidy in the private sector started under the Labour Government in 2008. Rewriting history does not work. The British public want to know the truth: those on the Labour Benches ruined the economy and we are getting it back on track.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. On the one hand, she has spent a long time telling us that there are now many more people in work, although the rate of employment has still not returned to pre-recession levels. But if —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must be brief, but she must be heard.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If everything is going so well, why since 2010 has there been such a substantial increase in the number of people using food banks? The only explanation can be the Government’s changes to welfare policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

The Opposition like to forget all about that. The industry I know most about is probably the construction industry, which was brought to its knees in 2007 under the guidance of those on the Opposition Benches. Many industries had a tough time pre-2010. That is when it all happened. Equally, the Opposition are so bad with numbers they do not understand that there needs to be a change of gear to rebalance an economy and change things to get back on track. It does not happen overnight; it happens over a long period of time. Something to ponder on for a second is that it was the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who said that the Opposition want to be tougher on benefits and do more than we are doing. I wonder how Opposition Members feel about that and whether they believe that use of the Trussell Trust would be higher or lower were that to happen.

I will come to a close now. [Interruption.] Sadly, there is chanting from the Opposition. I find how the Opposition left this country—in a vulnerable position—a really sad moment. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Hon. Members will allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

[Esther McVey]

For the people of the UK, I find that deeply saddening. For me, it is not something to be chanting and cheering about. The Opposition need to reflect—for about the next 20 years—on what they did to UK plc, while we get it right. For those reasons, and many, many more—mainly its inaccuracy—I reject the Opposition day motion. Instead, I welcome the promising signs that we are delivering for jobs and growth: the fastest growth in the G7 this quarter, more people in work, more businesses going, more exports, more work for everybody. That is why we object to the motion and welcome what we are doing on this side of the House.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the huge interest in this debate, not least among our constituents, is it within your power to extend the time for the debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Another way to phrase it would be: if Members had behaved with decorum during the Front-Bench speeches, would there be more time for Back Benchers? He is right that there is a lot of interest in the debate, but sadly it is not within my power to extend the time available. I am glad he made his point of order, however, because it gives me the opportunity to ask hon. Members to be courteous to other hon. Members and keep their speeches as brief as possible.

Housing Benefit

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Hollingbery]

The point is well made. I entirely accept that there is indeed a mismatch in many parts of the country. However, it is not impossible for people to move between local authority areas. That happens in the private sector, and there is no good reason why it cannot happen in the public sector. Certainly, it is more difficult, but there is no reason why it should not happen.

I recently visited a young family in Wickham, which is in my constituency. The couple had one child and another on the way. There was one bedroom upstairs, with a small bathroom, a kitchen-sitting room-dining area downstairs, and that was it. The child was living in a cot in the sitting room. Just yards away were two and three-bedroom homes under-occupied by lifetime tenants.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The clock is wrong, and I should warn him that he does not have five minutes and four seconds left; he has only four minutes and one second.

[George Hollingbery]

Thank you for that warning, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The situation that I have described cannot be right, either in terms of the use of resources or in terms of plain fairness. According to the switching site HomeSwapper, those who have successfully moved as a consequence of these changes often say that their understanding of the unfairness of the situation was a significant part of their motivation. However, it is also important to note that the potential reduction in housing benefit payments was what made them actually do something about it.

The unfairness is, of course, only exacerbated by the rules governing the private rented sector, under which only the space that is needed is paid for. That has been referred to at length this afternoon. Presumably, if the principle of ensuring the right number of bedrooms is unfair in social housing, it is also unfair in private housing. That point too has already been made. The motion

“calls on the Government to end these deductions with immediate effect”.

I can only imagine that the Opposition will propose similar changes in the private sector, as the same principle applies. If so, how much will it cost, and if not, why not?

It is clear that the Opposition’s thinking on this matter has been, to say the least, inconsistent. In 2011, I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We had a long discussion, and a number of amendments were tabled to clause 68, which established the principle of the spare room subsidy reduction. All the points that were made were salient, the amendments—most of which were tabled by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is no longer in the Chamber—were perfectly sensible, and, in large part, the Government have introduced provisions to deal with them. Interestingly, however, no Division was called on a stand part motion, and no attempt was made to remove the clause on Report. I am a novice in these matters, but my interpretation of what happened is that the Opposition accepted the principle. If that is not the case, I should like to hear why it is not.

The Opposition’s difficulty with welfare reform as a whole is clear. Recently, the hon. Member for Westminster North, who very ably took large parts of the Welfare Reform Bill through Committee, including clause 68, was reported as saying that the Opposition had not won the public debate on welfare, and it appears that she is right. Ipsos MORI carried out a survey of 2,000 people in late August this year from which it concluded that:

“By a margin of 3 to 1, the majority of the British public believe that the benefits system in Britain is too generous.”

Interestingly, it also revealed that the public broadly supported the Government’s position on the spare room subsidy.

Back in April, Peter Watt, former general secretary of the Labour party, wrote on the “Labour Uncut” website:

“I don’t know what Labour’s position on welfare reform is”,

and added,

“Labour has in the past also talked tough on welfare and that it would like to reduce welfare bills. The problem is that it is currently fighting a battle in which it is opposing the government’s attempts to achieve this. So Labour appears confused.”

Today, in this motion, we see yet another example of this confusion.

It must be right, at a time of acute overcrowding co-existing with a great deal of under-occupancy in the social housing sector, for the Government to take action to encourage change. A broad policy of this sort will inevitably throw up real-life difficulties when applied in the particular, but the Government have been very careful to deal with as many of them as possible and have made many exceptions to the general rule. They have also made substantial amounts of money available through discretionary housing payment to ease the transition for those who are affected.

Furthermore, evidence shows that over 10% of those who have been affected by the change so far have come off benefits entirely, which must surely be welcomed by all. Change of this sort is never easy to implement, but that does not mean it is not fair in principle and that it is not necessary. In this case, it is both, and I will certainly vote for the Government’s amendment this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon in the High Court, there has been a ruling that the charter of fundamental rights is part of domestic law, irrespective of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 and despite what was said at the time. What can be done to stop this coach and horses going through Acts of Parliament, invading our supremacy, and what can you and Mr Speaker do to defend this Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well, as ever. However, as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a matter for the Chair if the fundamental rights and liberties of this great House of Commons are damaged by a foreign court and we can do nothing about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have just said that it is not a matter for the Chair. It may be a matter for debate at some other time, but it is not a matter for the Chair and that was therefore not further to the point of order.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it was described by the judge in the case as a ruling of constitutional significance which cannot be underestimated, has a Minister offered any indication that they will come to make a statement about this very grave matter?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have ruled that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. The point will undoubtedly be brought to this Chamber at another time.

Pensions Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

My letter has not had the desired effect. I thought that Madam Deputy Speaker called me “Greg Mulholland” there. I was processing that, rather than being shocked at the fact that the Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretary is going to vote with the Government. Believe it or not, that did not come as much of a surprise to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. That was my mistake. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) will speak later. I call Greg McClymont.

[Gregg McClymont]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether I had misheard or whether the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was trying to intervene.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), one of the group of 40, as a doughty campaigner on behalf of those who wish to see radical reform of the pensions market. I do not know whether he had left his place when I quoted from the “40 Policy Ideas from the 40” and the description of the private pensions market as “failed”. I noted that the language used by those 40 MPs was stronger than anything I had used about the private pension market, and suggested that it is a little odd that Conservative MPs take a tougher line on the industry than the Liberal Democrat Minister. Perhaps it is not odd, however, because those who believe in free markets will want the pensions market to work effectively. [Interruption.] I did not catch what was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), but I invite him to intervene if he wishes to do so.

Mr Speaker—[Laughter]—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are not the only one who can make a verbal slip!

I was struck by what the Minister said about decumulation. It proved my point about his ability to talk but not necessarily to take any action, or enough action. New clause 11 calls for an independent brokerage service to guide those who annuitise on retirement through the process. Its aim is to deal with the lack of competition which, according to the NAPF and others, causes people to receive an average of 20% less in their annuities than they would have received had they shopped around. That returns me to a point with which I have been trying to persuade the Minister to engage. Buying an annuity involves a huge decision which a person will make only once in a lifetime, and which will affect the rest of that person’s life. However, the process is complicated, and because they find it hard to understand what they are being told, most people currently default to the annuities that they are being offered by their existing pension providers.

[Katy Clark]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is speaking up for savers. He is raising issues that have already been raised with me by a number of my constituents. When I told the Minister that we were waiting to hear proposals from the Government, he said that we would hear something very soon. Has my hon. Friend been given any indication of when that might happen?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Gregg McClymont!

[Gregg McClymont]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was beautifully pronounced, which is what I would expect from a Member from Kilmacolm. I look forward to your pronunciation of my constituency.

My hon. Friend made a very good point. I think she, and indeed everyone who listened to the Minister’s response to new clause 11, will be wondering what he proposes in lieu of the new clause. “Nothing” is an honest and fair assessment—or, at least, “Nothing concrete or substantive.” Referring to decumulation, the Minister said, “An awful lot needs to be looked at. We need to go further, but we need a creative approach rather than merely focusing on annuities.” I understand what he meant, because there is an ongoing debate about annuities as a product, but people out there, including our constituents, are annuitising every day. I do not think that saying to those people, “We are going to think about some creative solutions, we cannot tell you what they are, and because we are going to do something creative, we should not at this stage do something specific and concrete in order to improve outcomes,” stands the test. How long will it be before the Minister deals with this problem?

We know that annuities are a huge issue and that plenty of ideas are flying around, but ours is a concrete, practical proposal to improve annuity outcomes as things stand. I do not deny that the Minister has done something pretty significant in respect of state pensions, and I know that he must maintain a balance between pension schemes, but is it really good enough for him to respond to us by saying, “We need to do something—we need to go further—but we need a creative approach rather than your approach, which is focused on annuities”?

Annuities are the product that most people have to buy, and I think it unfair of the Minister to reject our new clause on the grounds that he prefers a more creative approach without explaining what that creative approach will be. I know that he has a great deal on his plate with state pension reform—winding up the state second pension as quickly as he intends to wind it up constitutes an incredibly big reform—but I ask him to reflect on whether it is good enough to say to people who have saved throughout their lives, and who are now receiving much less than they could have received had they shopped around, “We cannot support the Opposition’s new clause because although an awful lot needs to be done and we need to go further, we need a more creative approach.” I do not believe that anyone will be convinced by that.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, let me put this in context. The Minister has proposed new clause 1 as the framework around which we will discuss private pensions today. He referred to the fact that he has for some time had the powers to cap charges, but has not used them. One suspects that new clause 1 is a way for the Minister—and I do not complain about this—to promote and publicise his desire to be seen to take decisive action on pension charges. It is worth pointing out, however, as the Minister has pointed out to me several times, that he already has powers to cap charges. I tell the hon. Member for Warrington South, whom I greatly respect on these issues, that those powers have been in place for some time—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is addressing a great many issues in this group of clauses and amendments, but, having heard his arguments several times, I trust that he will soon be drawing his remarks to a conclusion.

[Gregg McClymont]

Thank you for that wise advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat sidetracked by the excellent intervention—[Interruption.] That is another intervention from the Parliamentary Private Secretary. If Members want to stand up and say something, I am happy to take an intervention. If they want to heckle from the back row, I will continue to respond to those heckles.

Where are we? The Minister wants to be seen to be taking decisive action on pension charges but today he has called for yet another consultation. He has moved on during the past year, as he had said that Labour was scaremongering and he could see no need for a cap. The consultation is a development, but we need action now. Our amendment (a) to new clause 1 would ensure full disclosure of all costs and charges and our other proposals would ensure a private pension system that would mean that everyone who was auto-enrolled would get value for money. The Minister is right that auto-enrolment started well, but he knows as well as I do that the key is the smaller employers. We are determined that everyone should get a good deal from auto-enrolment and I therefore commend our new clauses and amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont]

This is all very curious, because the front cover of the document refers to “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”, and its states:

“The Forty Group consists of the forty most marginal Conservative seats”.

One of the MPs listed is the hon. Gentleman—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. We are straying somewhat from the amendments and new clauses before us. If there is a difference of opinion, it will have to remain as such. I urge hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber please to stick to the points before us on private pensions.

[Richard Graham]

I welcome your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before the shadow Minister intervened, I had been referring to scale. I touched briefly on the fact that size is not everything when it comes to the management of pension funds, as with so much else in life, Madam Deputy Speaker. In order not to delay you further on that point, I will move swiftly on to annuities.

Annuities matter. We are in a new world, as the Minister said, because we are living longer and we need more options. There is more to annuities than simply a need for more competition, choice and help, although that is important and the code of conduct from the Association of British Insurers is a promising start. I agree with the Minister, though, that we should go further. At the heart of the matter is transferability—being able to trade annuities at different periods of life when different circumstances crop up and when there is different pricing in the marketplace. What we certainly do not want is a single product solution. I was lobbied heavily at the Conservative party conference by an annuity provider who was keen to impress on me the importance and relevance of their single product solution, but my instinct—I hope that the Minister is with me on this—is that such solutions are precisely what we do not need in the world of annuities.

Those were the six main points I wanted to cover—auto-enrolment, small pots, aggregators, charges, scale and annuities—and I have done so in about seven minutes. There is no need to go on for much longer, but I will try to bring my speech to some sort of rounded conclusion by asking the Minister to note three queries that constituents have raised with me.

The first query, which I think is important for Members across the House, relates to bereavement support payment. It is clearly an emotional issue, as all families who have had to deal with tragedy will understand, particularly when it comes to bereaved children. Winston’s Wish is a charity headquartered in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), but it has a significant presence in mine. It has made a number of points, not all of which I agree with, but one is that the tax status of bereavement support payment is slightly unclear. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about that and whether it will be tax-free, because that would be hugely appreciated. Given that the trend of his proposals on bereavement support payment is effectively to increase the amount of money but have it paid for a shorter time, having that payment tax-free would be hugely helpful for families affected. There is a second point from Winston’s Wish that I want to raise with the Minister. I understand that unmarried partners are currently ineligible for BSP, so perhaps he will confirm whether people in civil partnerships are eligible.

The second query from a constituent relates to changes to occupational schemes, which my constituent believes can be done under the Bill without agreement from either members or trustees; currently trustees would have to approve it. My instinct is that long-standing defined benefit schemes, such as that of the major nuclear power operator headquartered in Barnwood in my constituency—formerly British Energy but now EDF Energy—are most unlikely to close without any form of consultation or discussion with members or trustees, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It will disappoint the hon. Lady, but I have no plans to do that.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in all that he is doing. No one can object to the equalisation of pension ages for men and women when we are fighting so hard for other areas of equality. However, does he recognise that for a particular group of some 300,000 women born in 1954 the transition arrangements are rather more difficult than for any other group in society? Although he should not change his policy, will he look at other ways to help that particular group of women?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I have made clear and will make clear later, the parameters of the Bill are clear and it is my intention to stand by those parameters. The ages will therefore equalise in 2018 and rise together to 66 by 2020. Of course, I am always happy to discuss these issues with colleagues from either side of the House, including those in the coalition. However, I make it absolutely clear that our plan is to press ahead with the Bill as it stands. The ages will therefore rise together to 66 by 2020.