Welfare Reform (Disabled People and Carers)

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

At a recent AGM of Hackney carers association, carers raised concerns with me about many things. One was the carers allowance, which is only £55.50 a week. I want to ask the Minister to comment on the proposal by some bodies that that should be increased. Many carers in my constituency have been on low incomes for long periods of their lives already. It is not as if they have reserves to fall back on.

I wanted to touch on the general issue of disabled households typically being poorer, often because disability has meant being able to work less over time. Many carers have had to give up jobs to care. I am a former working carer, and I cared for two disabled adults. Annie, who sadly died in October, went to live with her sister, who was also a working carer. The Minister needs to understand that the pressure on carers is immense. As many hon. Members have mentioned, the cumulative impact of many changes can be very complicated.

When I cared for two disabled adults, at one point I dealt with 13 different agencies just to get the basics of care, support and medical support in place. Happily for me, at that time we were not dealing with many changes in the benefit system. I am not saying it was all perfect, but it was at least a stable system. All the changes coming hard on the heels of one another add stress to carers who must navigate through the system in addition to all the other challenges of being a carer. We live in a world now where people should be able to work and care, but we make it more difficult for them to do it. When I was a working carer my husband’s cousin was a carer for her sister. We worked because we had to—to pay bills and pay for our families. There was no option for us. Many people have taken the option of not working, and that has considerably reduced their household income.

I want to touch briefly on the work done by Contact a Family in my constituency, and ask the Minister to comment on the disability addition under universal credit, which seems to cut the weekly tax credit for families with a disabled child from £57 to £28. The issues for families with children are immense. If we do not get this right now, it says bad things about what our society wants to do for disabled people. Those families want to ensure that their children have the best start in life to increase their chances of independent living later on. Without proper support in the early stages, families can break down under the immense pressure. As we know, many marriages struggle under the strain of coping with a disabled child. I urge the Minister to comment on that point and to look more widely at the work of organisations such as Contact a Family, which, by the way, is quite supportive of some of the Government changes, but has some particular points that I urge the Minister to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

1. What his plans are for the future of housing benefit for people under 25 years old.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What his plans are for the future of housing benefit for people under 25 years old.

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

In June, the Prime Minister instigated a debate about the merits and risks of taxpayers continuing to meet the £2 billion bill that automatic entitlement to housing benefit for people aged under 25 brings. More work is required, and that discussion and debate is still going on.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I repeat what I said in my first answer: there is a discussion and debate. The policy debates are likely to go ahead, but I have no plans as yet to implement any policy—there are further discussions to be had.

[Meg Hillier]

When the Secretary of State is having those further discussions, perhaps he will take account of experience in my constituency, where around a third of residents are under 24. Nationally, an estimated 400,000 households are headed by someone under 25 who claims housing benefit, half of whom have dependent children. When he is having those discussions, will he consider the impact on children of his policy proposal?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That would go without saying—all impacts on various groups will be taken into consideration. The main point I would make is that, no matter what else, if we were to implement such a policy, we would have to take into consideration categories of people who might find it incredibly difficult, such as those described by the hon. Lady. There would not necessarily be carte blanche—there would be nuances and changes. However, as I have said, discussions are ongoing, and as she can see, no policy exists at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a range of interventions that we can make to help people get back into work, and mobility is one. Welfare reform and universal credit are another, because they will ensure that people are better off working than not working. We want to see which levers and which policies work, to get as many people as possible into employment.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister indicated, some information about the Work programme will now be made available to local authorities on a confidential basis, but there is no accountability without transparency. When will he see the light and allow all of us who have an interest in ensuring that people can get work through the Work programme to have access to information about its performance?

[Mr Hoban]

I remind the hon. Lady that, as I said earlier, information is already shared with local authorities on a confidential basis. [Interruption.] We need to maintain the confidentiality of the data to ensure the integrity of national statistics. [Laughter.] The Opposition may treat national statistics cavalierly, but it is absolutely right that we protect the data to get the best information out there. There are no constraints on employers, local authorities or Work programme providers working together to share information, to get the most effective possible scheme in place.

Benefits (Terminally Ill Patients)

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, I am privileged to represent a number of organisations that are national leaders in their field, one of which is St Joseph’s hospice, which, founded by the Sisters of Charity, has for 109 years provided support for east enders who are dying.

St Joseph’s works with patients to help support them in their final months of life. It offers end-of-life care in its hospice and day hospice, and at home, for terminally ill people, their families and carers. It has a great deal of experience in ensuring that patients get the benefits to which they are entitled.

St Joseph’s has recently alerted me to serious problems with the administration of benefits for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Hackney citizens advice is also helping a number of people who are diagnosed as terminally ill who are not receiving consistent support and advice when applying for benefits, particularly employment support allowance.

I want to outline the scale of the issue; what is supposed to happen when someone who is terminally ill claims benefits; and the experience of national and local providers and individuals. If I may, I also want to suggest to the Minister some ways in which the situation can be improved.

Nationally, Macmillan Cancer Support and Citizens Advice work together to support cancer patients with benefits and debt advice. From March 2007 to March 2011, they helped more than 39,000 cancer patients with over 190,000 issues. Out of those 190,000 issues, 78% were related to welfare benefits in general, with employment support allowance cases totalling 10,659, or around 8% of cases.

Over the same period, Citizens Advice and Macmillan caseworkers gained more than £77 million for their clients. More than £71 million of that was through ensuring that clients received all the benefits to which they were entitled. Behind those big numbers are vital payments to families of people who are dying and unable to support themselves financially without the support of the state.

Let me explain to Members of the House who may not be aware how the system of claiming is supposed to work. To be “terminally ill” in order to qualify for benefits, a person must have a progressive disease and their death must be reasonably expected within six months. That is certified by a general practitioner or specialist using a medical report called a DS1500. Once someone is given a DS1500 form, they automatically qualify for disability living allowance at the higher rate.

Employment support allowance is the benefit for people under 65 who are unable to work because of their illness. Under special rules, people who are terminally ill and not already receiving one of those benefits are entitled to swift access at the very highest level of support from one of those options. Some who are still working will qualify for both, but not necessarily at the same time.

Macmillan Cancer Support tells me that in its experience nationally, the system for disability living allowance has worked well. The disability and carers service is able to fast-track payments and usually does so. The service is well attuned to the needs of someone with a terminal illness. However, when it comes to employment support allowance the picture is different. To claim for ESA, the person must advise the jobcentre personally that they are terminally ill. In some cases, patients are not aware of their prognosis; in others, they are too ill to advise their jobcentre. Why, therefore, can local jobcentres not just accept the DS1500 form from a doctor, welfare adviser or relative as proof of the right to ESA, as can be done with DLA? Why can a check not be done on the DLA database by the assessor from the Department?

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is setting out the situation powerfully and clearly. My constituent Mr McGowan, of Blantyre in Lanarkshire, is in the latter stages of his life. He has a terminal illness, severe dementia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, he is bedridden and he cannot even swallow. He recently received a standard letter from the Department for Work and Pensions asking him to get in touch so that he could be given guidance about how to get back to work. Given that the DWP knows all the people who are terminally ill, because they have filled in the DS1500 form, is it not irresponsible and distasteful, as well as deeply upsetting for those concerned and the relatives looking after them, for the DWP to send such standard letters, when the data already exist, and people know they should not be in that position?

[Meg Hillier]

I completely agree, and it would be simple to solve the problem. Simply sharing the data would mean that individuals and their families do not have to go through the distress that such letters can cause.

There are times, of course, when a patient who is diagnosed continues to receive income from their employer. That can mean that they do not need to claim ESA until months later, when their paid work stops. They can have their DS1500, but by the time they stop their paid work, it will be out of date. As we know, people have been asked to get an up-to-date form from their doctor.

Macmillan tells me that there have, unfortunately, been cases where jobcentre staff, on seeing the form or requesting it, have disclosed to a terminally ill patient their prognosis. Imagine someone’s shock at learning they are going to die from a member of staff at the jobcentre or from a stranger over the phone. That underlines why the support needs to be particularly sensitive for people who are dying.

Recently, there has been a serious backlog of claims. St Joseph’s has had patients who have died while waiting for their benefits claims to be assessed. I support calls by St Joseph’s and others for the Department to introduce a fast-track approach for end-of-life patients, as with DLA.

Macmillan operates a national helpline and tells me that the situation varies across the country. Some jobcentres say the patient has to make a claim themselves, and some say that is not necessary to start a claim. That variation suggests that, with some focus, the problem could be sorted. I put it to the Minister that we need a step change in how the service is delivered for those who are terminally ill.

The Minister will have been briefed about the guidance that he and his ministerial colleagues have issued to workers on the front line. Whatever the edicts of Whitehall, my concern is that his guidance is not fully understood or is not being followed at a local level. The human impact is immense, and I hope he shares my serious concerns.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has concentrated on people with cancer, but I have a constituent who developed cerebellar ataxia, which is a chronic and progressive illness resulting from the degeneration of nerve tissue in the spinal cord. It leads to muscle weakness, loss of co-ordination, vision and hearing impairment, slurred speech, heart disorders, progressive staggering or stumbling, and frequent falling. My constituent was initially disallowed her ESA. An assessment restored it. Since then, despite the fact there is a letter from a consultant, she has been told she must regularly have a work capability assessment. That is not only deeply distressing and unpleasant for her, but it is a complete waste of public money.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I am sure the Minister is ever alert to the impact of decisions on the public purse. One of the things I would say about this issue is that it is not necessarily the case that getting this right for terminally ill patients would cost the public purse any more money; this is simply about making the system work better.

My hon. Friends have raised some individual cases, and I would like to highlight some from my constituency. These involve real people who have experienced stress and worry about money in their final months of life. Mrs A is a constituent of mine who has asked me not to identify her in the House. Her husband died six months ago, and she contacted me to tell me of his experience. Despite having a terminal illness—not cancer—he was called in for a back-to-work interview after six months on ESA. Incredibly, the assessor found him fit for work. They claimed that this was on the basis of health checks that my constituent, who accompanied him to the assessment, tells me they did not even make.

A debate in Westminster Hall secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on 1 February highlighted serious issues with Atos assessments. I will not repeat those concerns here but this case underlines them, although it is worth echoing a point that he made at the beginning of that debate. I have no problem with work assessment. My issue is with the treatment of people who will clearly never go back to work because of a long-term progressive illness and who have the paperwork to prove it.

Six months later, Mr A’s case has only just gone to appeal. The assessor claims that Atos did not know my constituent was terminally ill. My recently widowed constituent is still dealing with the appeal. She said to me, “My husband worked all his life. He probably worked longer than he should have done given his health.” He was entitled to support. The treatment that he received and the stress caused by losing his benefits should not have been experienced by him in his last months of life; nor should his widow have to continue to battle after his death.

St Joseph’s has told me about two recent cases where there have been issues with assessments. A patient who was blind and terminally ill from a brain tumour was asked to attend a medical assessment. Fortunately, the hospice social worker wrote to the medical team to explain the terminal illness and point out that he was blind and could not get to Wembley independently. As a result, the assessment was cancelled.

Another patient had been found fit for work and was appealing with the help of another agency. He was terminally ill and had been awarded disability living allowance under the special rules. All the paperwork was in place, so he should never have even been called for an assessment, let alone have been deemed fit for work. When St Joseph’s stepped in and contacted the appeals section to inform it of this, his benefit was reinstated promptly. However, there is nothing to substitute for that good advice at a late stage. The system needs to work better before organisations that are attuned to this, such as St Joseph’s, Macmillan and others, step in.

Marie Curie told me that the DWP confirmed to it, on 20 January this year, that the time limit on ESA would not apply to people who were terminally ill because they were automatically placed in the support group rather than the work-related activity group under the Work programme. Under the Welfare Reform Bill, people in the support group will not have their access to ESA time-limited. This should mean that someone who is terminally ill should not be called for a work capability assessment. Will the Minister confirm that fact? Will he also tell me what he and his colleagues are doing to ensure that front-line staff are aware of it, and not putting our constituents through the pain and upset that he has heard today?

St Joseph’s hospice has raised with me a number of other problems that its clients have faced. Often a patient has missed out on benefits for a long time before being advised at the hospice about his or her entitlement, as other agencies miss the implications of terminal illness on benefits or give incomplete advice. The Minister needs to be aware of this issue, as it needs to be tackled. Hospital staff do not always refer a patient, even when help is available at the hospital.

If ever there was an area where timeliness and joined-up government was necessary, this is it. St Joseph’s can work with agencies, such as the pension service, to refer those over 60 for help claiming and completing forms. Everything does not always go smoothly, but there is a real need for a similar joined-up approach to helping those under 60 with life-limiting illnesses.

The debate over the future of welfare has been raging in both Houses and in the country since the last general election and before. There are many disagreements between the Opposition and the Minster, but we can surely agree that one core element of our benefit system is that it will support those unable to support themselves through sickness or disability.

I have highlighted just some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention. There are, I am sure, cases where patients or members of their families have died before a claim has been processed and where people might not be aware of their rights. I hope that the Minister will take on board these concerns and the impact on terminally ill patients and their families. This problem can be solved, and solved quite quickly.

What training is provided to jobcentre staff, and does the Minister have any plans to change it? Given that I have picked up on the fact that there are quite significant regional variations, how is best practice shared across the country? I urge him to ensure that no more patients face a bureaucratic maze in ensuring that they can support their families in the final months of life, and that no more widows such as Mrs A have to deal with a system in bereavement that should be supporting them when they need that support most.

The system is a lottery. If someone is lucky, they will find an adviser who can help them negotiate the system. They might find a Department for Work and Pensions adviser who understands and can fast-track their application. However, many are not getting the service and the benefits to which they are entitled. They are among those who need the support most, and they need it immediately. Add to those problems the current backlog and the lack of a freephone number, and the costs for patients already struggling with money are increasing.

The Minister must acknowledge that all is not well. I want to hear what he will do to solve those problems. Has he, for example, considered a central service, so that anyone who is terminally ill is dealt with by someone who is sensitive to their support needs? Again, I am not asking for more money; I am simply asking for the reconfiguration of the existing service, which is already being paid for by taxpayers. I urge the Minister to act now, to ensure that terminally ill people and their families are able to spend their last days without the worry that they will have to justify their entitlement to benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. This is the hon. Lady’s debate, and I have only a few minutes in which to respond.

Unlike other claimants to employment and support allowance, individuals who are terminally ill are paid the support group component backdated to the date of claim. So, the assessment period, during which those making a standard claim would be paid at a lower rate, does not apply. Once we have identified that someone is terminally ill and put them in the support group, their payment at the higher rate is backdated to week one; they are not paid the lower 13-week assessment rate. That is quite properly an additional source of support. Similarly for disability living allowance, individuals are fast-tracked to the highest rate of the care component, which is currently worth £73.60. They do not have to satisfy the normal entitlement conditions for the care component, or meet the usual qualifying period of three months. These have all been features of the system for some time, and they are designed specifically to assist terminally ill people.

The hon. Lady also, quite properly, raised the issue of people finding out in an inappropriate manner that they are terminally ill. It is totally unacceptable for someone to find that out from a jobcentre or over the phone: that simply should not happen.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for that categorical statement. Would it not be easier for DWP assessors simply to check the disability living allowance database? They would not then have to ask for a form, which would make life a lot easier for the patient.

[Steve Webb]

Absolutely. Atos was awarded the contract to do the face-to-face assessments some years ago. In regard to data sharing, it would be aware that a DS1500 form had been completed for a claimant, so it should not need to ask for another form to be completed. I would be keen to hear about any individual cases in which that has none the less happened, when it should not have done, and we will follow them up. The intention is that, whenever possible, these matters should be dealt with on the basis of paperwork and forms that have already been submitted, rather than calling people in for a face-to-face assessment. As the hon. Lady says, calling them in is inappropriate and unnecessary, and it also costs money. There is no reason why anyone would want it to happen, and we are keen to ensure that it does not.

We also recognise that some people do not know, or do not wish to know, that they are terminally ill. The provisions for DLA allow a claim to be made for such people under the special rules by a third party, and such a claim will be handled sensitively to ensure that the prognosis is not revealed to the terminally ill person. For both benefits—DLA and ESA—processes are in place to ensure speedy access to benefits and minimal form filling. I shall talk the House briefly through the process involved. The claim is sent for urgent medical advice from medical services, which have 48 hours to provide advice on whether the individual meets the terminal illness criteria. Performance data over the last year on the typical turnaround time for these applications show that medical services are providing advice in an average of 1.2 days for ESA claims, and an average of 1.5 days for DLA claims. In general, therefore, these claims are being turned round very quickly, and rightly so.

To provide this advice, medical services can contact the claimant’s GP, or the treating health care professional, to check whether they are already receiving DLA due to terminal illness. Advice is then provided to a decision maker, who makes a judgment on the balance of probabilities and has some discretion. The whole process should take no longer than a week from start to finish. Claims for employment and support allowance are currently taking just over seven working days, and claims for disability living allowance are taking just under six working days.

Appeals have been mentioned, and I would be the first to accept that it is taking too long to deal with them. These matters are handled by the tribunals service, under the Ministry of Justice, and we are working closely with the service to try to reduce the backlog. Some progress has been made. For most of this year, the number of new cases coming in has been lower than the number of appeals cleared, but I freely accept that it is still taking too long.

There are a lot of reassessments taking place at the moment, involving people who have been on incapacity benefit for a long time, and the volume of appeals is inevitably rising as a result. When someone appeals, they stay on benefit in the meantime. I am talking now about general decisions on IB, rather than those for terminally ill people. Appealing enables the benefit to continue, so there is quite a strong incentive to do so, and the volume of appeals has greatly increased.

We are taking steps to address that. First, we are dealing with appeals more quickly. The volume of appeals processed by the tribunals service has been 66% higher in the first seven months of 2011-12 compared with 2009-10. There is much greater throughput, therefore. Secondly, we must try to get the decisions right in the first place. That is in everybody’s interests. I am proud of the Harrington review process, which analysed the very flawed work capability assessment. Professor Harrington produced his first report, and the Department accepted all his recommendations and has been implementing them. Professor Harrington has reported back, saying the Department is doing a pretty good job in taking on his recommendations. He has now produced a second round of recommendations. As I have said, the key is to get these decisions right in the first place, and we are finding that the rate of successful appeals against WCA decisions is significantly lower than under the old personal capability assessment.

[Meg Hillier]

That is all very well for the bulk of cases, but the key point in today’s debate is that those who are terminally ill should not have to go through an appeal in the first place. Speed of delivery is also important. We are hearing of serious delays for people with a terminal illness. Will the Minister move on to the element of his remarks that deal with that?

Work Capability Assessments

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Greatrex]

I do not know why the hon. Lady says “Ah!” from a sedentary position as though that was some great revelation, because no one has suggested anything else. After the pilots, the Select Committee report highlighted issues that should then have been dealt with, but rather than dealing with them, the Minister decided to roll out the process. That is the root of the problems, such as the huge backlog of appeals, the huge cost to the public purse of dealing with those appeals and the huge anxiety and concern of many people. Many people have worked for a number of years and now find themselves, through no fault of their own, unable to continue in their previous line of work, and they would appreciate help to get into work; many others, frankly, are no longer able to work. The process was rolled out without its problems being addressed first, and given how the system is operating, those concerns are now coming home to roost.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some of us who were Members before 2010 expressed concern to the previous Government. A serious issue in my constituency is the higher incidence than the national average of mental health problems, and some of those people affected have come to see me. One brave gentleman explained exactly how he had gone through the process, which involved a half-hour interview and a tick-box approach that did not take into account the challenges of mental health. As with many of my constituents with mental health problems, he would really like to work, but that short, sharp, tick-box system is not how to help people. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.

[Tom Greatrex]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Such issues were among those identified. My contention is that those problems should have been dealt with before the system was rolled out further, and we are now dealing with the consequences of those decisions.

The Atos half-yearly report for 2011 was very upbeat. It noted that operating margins had increased year on year to €166 million—an 11% increase from the first half of 2010. Its operating margin in the UK in 2011 was a healthy €34 million. The outlook for the second half of 2011 was similarly rosy: Atos expected profits to increase by 6.2%. I say all that not to congratulate Atos and marvel at how successful it has been, but to preface my next remarks.

Recommendation 13 of Professor Harrington’s first review was

“better communication between Decision Makers and Atos healthcare professionals to deal with borderline cases”.

In their initial official response to Harrington’s 2010 review, the Government accepted that recommendation, noting:

“Decision Makers already contact Atos healthcare professionals to discuss individual case issues in some instances… we will ensure this happens more often… Agreed measures will be adopted nationally during 2011.”

In a letter that I received from the DWP dated 1 November 2011, I was advised that good progress had been made on that key Harrington recommendation. The DWP letter claimed that

“Atos Healthcare Professional deployment in Benefit Centres has been trialled and has proven to be an effective way of improving communications to discuss borderline cases.”

However, on 20 December 2011, just over six weeks later, in answer to a written question that I had tabled, the Minister advised that

“at the end of the trial, Atos health care professional capacity pressures meant that the initiative could not be continued. From the start of December, DWP and Atos have agreed the implementation of a telephone helpline so that Decision Makers can speak directly to health care professionals to obtain medical advice in specific cases. This is an interim arrangement until Atos are in a position to reintroduce the deployment of health care professionals in benefit centres.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1082W.]

That is a hugely significant development. This may have been due to when I tabled the question or when the Minister chose to answer it, but he slipped that answer out just before the Christmas holidays. The fact that Government policy is not being followed by a company in receipt of £100 million of taxpayer funding a year will startle many of my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of many other right hon. and hon. Members.

I should be grateful to the Minister if he gave me answers to a number of questions. What exactly does the phrase “capacity pressures” mean? Does it mean that Atos cannot recruit the right number of health care professionals to undertake its work? Is it unable to fulfil its contractual obligations because of the amount of work that it has to get through? What discussions has he had with Atos about those capacity pressures? Does he believe that they undermine the ability of Atos to fulfil its responsibilities under the contract? What other services have been withdrawn as a result of capacity pressures in Atos? I am sure that if he is not able to answer, I will find a way of crafting written questions to get the answers from him.

To me, the phrase “capacity pressures” implies an undermining of the way in which the Government sought to deal with these issues, which was by saying that Harrington’s recommendations would be implemented in full. If that is not happening in the instance to which I have referred and perhaps in other instances because of capacity pressures in Atos, is that not a damning indictment of the failure of the system as it is currently set up?

Living Standards

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Government are having a big impact on poorer people. We see that particularly clearly in my constituency, where 21% of households have an income of less than £15,000 per annum. Indeed, we have the dubious honour of being beaten in that regard by only one other London borough. As of March this year the majority of young people in my constituency—just over 58% of those aged up to 19 years—lived in households in receipt of means-tested benefits. In Hackney, 39% of adults live in households receiving benefit, and that proportion rises to a staggeringly high 71% when we combine those in social housing and lone parents with two or more children.

I would therefore be very concerned about the impacts on real people of the policies of any Government. In this House, we often hear esoteric debate about the impacts of quantitative easing and the big economic arguments. However, although it is important that we deal with the deficit, we are not accountants. Rather, we are politicians, and we need to challenge Government about such impacts on people and we need to bring people with us.

I want to tell Members a little about some of the people in my constituency, therefore. Many Members have spoken about the many financial pressures facing people, and I might add that businesses in Hackney central, my area’s main shopping centre, tell me that footfall is down by about 40%. Things are hard for them too, therefore, as greater pressure on household incomes means people have less money to spend.

Some families facing financial pressures in my constituency will also face a shortfall in housing benefit from next year, and they will have to cover that by finding some money from their other income. Where will they find that money, however, given all the other price increases, such as for food and energy?

This week, I met a young mother who works at McDonald’s. She does the 5 am to 9 am shift so that her husband can look after the children, and she works 16 hours so that she can get help in the form of tax credits, but the Chancellor’s announcements of this week will have an impact on that.

My constituency may have higher than average deprivation figures, but there is no lack of aspiration. In the last week alone, I have met two middle-aged women who used to work in schools before losing their jobs, but who are keen to get new jobs—to do any job in order to work—and I met a young African woman, immaculately turned out and at a good school, who is keen to go on to university, but her home is minimally furnished, with clothes stored in suitcases and the household investing only in necessities, as their income does not stretch to purchasing items that Members of this House would expect to be able to have.

We need to focus on the impacts on real people, and I therefore welcome the Government’s support for disadvantaged two-year-olds. All Members regardless of party allegiance agree that early intervention is crucial, but the key question is how we do that. Other Government measures are having a disproportionately great impact on poorer households, of which I represent many.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Is the hon. Lady aware that an all-party group inquiry into Sure Start found that fewer than 10 children’s centres had closed? Local councils have shown huge commitment to the ongoing success of this important matter.

[Meg Hillier]

It is easy for the Government to talk in figures, but many centres have been run down to the bare minimum and are helping just a few families, whereas before it was a universal service, which was one of the benefits.

The children in my constituency who turn up at school without breakfast because of their alcoholic or drug-addicted parents—the same children who turn up malnourished at the end of the school holidays—are the young people whom we should be helping to have a better future. All the Government’s actions—all the talk as though the Government are accountants—do not help those families. Whatever our party, we should not be hoodwinked by academic and esoteric debate but should govern for the people we represent and remember that not all of them enjoy the same advantages as we in this place do.

Youth Unemployment

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency, unemployment among 20 to 24 year olds is now at nearly a quarter. Members across the House should be alert to the cohort challenge, because a whole cohort of graduates is being hit hard. The unemployment rate for new graduates in the third quarter of 2010, according to the Office for National Statistics, was 20%. One in five recent graduates who are economically active and looking for work is unable to find it. That is almost double the rate from the start of the recession, which was 10.6%.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which echoes that made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). We know that if people are out of work when they are young, they are more likely to be low paid in the course of their career, more likely to suffer ill health and more likely to be unemployed again. That is why the Prince’s Trust and others are right to focus their attention on the crisis of youth unemployment that is unfolding in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I speak as someone who knows what it is like to have been made redundant, and I have also seen my father lose his job in his 50s. I can tell hon. Members that there are not many things worse than when a breadwinner comes back home to his family to tell them that he is out of work and there is no income. I also recall that as a 17-year-old I was asked, somewhat prematurely, to leave school, and I found myself having to look for work. My first job was not the one that I would have ideally wanted, but it was work and it provided my first wage—£48 a week, as I recall it. Getting a start is crucial for young people and I always tell the youngsters I talk to that being in the workplace is much better than not being in work at all, because they have to get something on their CV.

It is easy to go for the headlines and talk down our economy, but I would like to take a moment to talk up this Government’s efforts to improve youth employment chances, not just through job creation, but through their support of the apprenticeship scheme programme. Just over two months ago, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning announced cuts to bureaucracy to encourage employers to take on a large number of apprentices, and this serves as a proven way to fill the skills gap in our economy. As someone who has owned and run businesses, and actually created employment before entering this House, I am all too aware of the damage caused by excessive red tape and bureaucracy. It is vital that we reduce regulation in order to encourage businesses to employ youngsters. I am pleased that the Government have set about tackling this via the red tape challenge.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Adams]

I would love to but I need to crack on; we have only got four minutes each.

This Government also promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but the figure has been surpassed and we have seen a record year—an increase of over 50%. In fact, in my constituency 850 people are on apprenticeships, an increase of 67% in the last year. Only by proving to business and the private sector that it is worth their while investing in youngsters can we fulfil our long-term goal of reducing unemployment, and I am confident that, via apprenticeships, we are taking the right steps towards that aim.

Hon. Members can do more than their bit to help young people and others back into work. That is why I organised a jobs fair in my constituency, and I know that many of my colleagues have done something similar. More than 1,100 jobseekers came through the door—both unemployed, and employed but looking for new opportunities. It was evident to me at my jobs fair that vacancy statistics from Jobcentre Plus do not necessarily reflect the actual climate. Its figures for October 2011, published in the Library, would have people believe that at least three jobseekers apply for every vacancy advertised in my constituency—a deficit of employment. However, many of the work and training opportunities offered by the 52 different organisations that turned up to my jobs fair were not advertised in the Jobcentre Plus system, and never are. I am also pleased to say that the feedback from the jobs fair was very positive, and lots of people have received interviews and job opportunities and have started work. Indeed, I have visited some of the youngsters who have started work.

I am confident that the Government have a credible plan for getting this country’s finances back on track, reassuring businesses and reducing regulation. Labour should take note that—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate. I know the Opposition like to make their Wednesday afternoons political theatre, but there are many people on the Government Benches who are concerned about youth unemployment and have ideas about how the situation can be improved.

As the MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I represent the fourth most deprived Conservative-held seat in the country. That is no badge of honour. It is with no sense of satisfaction that I report that year on year youth unemployment has risen 36% since September 2010. I take no pleasure from the fact that even on the figures that were fed to The Times by the Labour party, the number of long-term youth unemployed has risen from 75 individuals to 100 individuals since May 2010, but I point out to Labour Members, as they seem to have failed to understand earlier, that there are 276 constituencies where youth unemployment has fallen or remained static since May 2010, according to the same figures as they obtained from the House of Commons Library.

I am sure that everyone who speaks in the debate will say that apprenticeships matter, and they matter to me. I have taken on one apprentice, Nathan, in my constituency office, and he is excellent. Many on the Government Benches have done the same, but we in the House obviously cannot solve the problem alone. I am delighted that, thanks to what the Government have been doing, the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has risen from 300 to 940.

[Meg Hillier]

All hon. Members would agree that apprenticeships are a good thing and that we want more of them, but what would the hon. Gentleman say about the issue that I have picked up on on doorsteps throughout the country, which is that young people with A-levels, and sometimes with degrees, are going for apprenticeships that would normally have been available to young people with lower levels of qualifications, thereby pricing them, so to speak, out of the market? Does he share my concern about that and will he raise the issue with Ministers in his Government?

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. It brings together a number of points that Members are likely to make this evening. First, we should welcome the fact that better qualified individuals are now seeking apprenticeships. We should not say that apprenticeships are only for those who are not academically inclined. Secondly, the Labour party now disapproves of older people seeking to take on apprenticeships. It was a Labour Government who commissioned the Leitch review, which wanted to see more older people going into apprenticeships.

I represent a seaside town. I know the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) does not understand the economics of seaside towns, so I shall try to explain to him that one of our fundamental problems, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in The Guardian interview that I saw in the debate pack, is that of generational worklessness and the potential for generational exodus, even—people not finding opportunities in seaside towns and having to leave.

For members of the third generation who do not have a job and cannot find a job, the inclination to go out and look for a job, and even seeing that part of their life involves going out to work, is lost. Part of the solution is getting the older generation into apprenticeships and into work as much as the younger generation. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) tried to make clear, the problem did not start in May 2010. It did not start even in May 1997 or May 1979. There has been a gradual structural problem of worklessness, particularly in post-industrial societies. Tourism and hospitality are not like coal mining or the steel industry, but they have none the less gone through a period of decline in my constituency and we have seen employment and opportunities fall as a consequence, so there is a challenge.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the Prince’s Trust, which does a fantastic job in my constituency. Three times a year it takes a group of 12 young people from deprived backgrounds. I have been to one of the thank you parties at the end of a session and heard the powerful tales of how they got into the situations they found themselves in. Many brought their problems to Blackpool from outside the town. Many came from broken homes, broken families and disappointed backgrounds, yet they have struggled and managed to succeed.

What frustrates me about the debate is not so much the usual political to and fro, the misuse of statistics and Members trying to portray things as good or bad, but the Labour party’s failure to understand that this is not about who is to blame. It is about trying to understand why worklessness occurs in our society, why young people are unable to enter employment and what we need to do to get them there. The Government are making progress. I would of course like it to be faster, but we are putting the building blocks in place and I welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

I agree that we could work up a programme to give national insurance relief to small companies taking on new workers, maybe even in the form of a rebate after the first complete year of employment. I have got lots of other ideas, which I hope colleagues in the Treasury will consider. Again, I agree with the Opposition: we need more incentives to stimulate private business to rev up the engine of growth.

It all boils down to growth, but it must be growth in the private sector, not growth led by creating jobs that do not exist, which is what one could argue the future jobs fund did. The Minister has outlined all the steps we are taking to create jobs and prosperity. The motion says only two things about youth unemployment: that long-term youth unemployment is up, and that we should not have scrapped the future jobs fund. Well, youth unemployment is up, but it grew under Labour by 40%—going from 664,000 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in May 1997 to 924,000 in May 2010. According to the latest statistics, that figure is 991,000. I hope that a Labour Member will intervene to explain to me how that equates to a 68% increase because, according to my mathematics, that seems more like 7%.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially given that time is short. Does she not agree that, out in the real world, people do not want the bickering. What they are concerned about, as we should be, is that an entire cohort—for example, graduates—is experiencing a higher rate of unemployment. We should be addressing the whole cohort issue, because we are condemning an entire group of young people to lower incomes and worse life chances as a result of Government policies.

[Lorely Burt]

I am sure we agree on the seriousness of the situation and all the different groups of young people who are affected. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not answer my question, but never mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a crucial point. We are not trying to do people down, but looking to help those with the potential to make more of their lives to do so. The assessment is all about working out who has the potential to get back into the workplace, and through the Work programme, we can deliver the specialist support that they need to do so.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning I met members of Headway East London concerned about the impact of this situation on people who are looking for work but feel that they are being penalised when they find it and then cannot cope with it. They talked about the chaos of the benefits system. When will the Minister be coming forward with these proposals and reassuring my constituents that they will be in a better position?

[Chris Grayling]

We are taking significant steps to sort out the problems to which the hon. Lady refers. The introduction of the universal credit in 2013 will completely transform how our benefits system works. It will be much easier for people with disabilities to move back into work step by step—initially, perhaps, by doing a few hours’ work and then by entering part-time and then full-time employment. It will transform their prospects.

Housing Benefit

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to server under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock.

I am mindful that a number of colleagues have approached me to say that they are keen to speak in the debate—that is an indication of how serious the Government’s recent proposals are—so I do not propose to go into detailed background about housing benefit. The Minister, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), is one of the most expert Members of Parliament on this subject. None of us need a history lesson on housing benefit, and I hope that the Minister will focus on answering the serious points that we all need to raise.

The cap on housing benefit levels that was announced in the Budget is devastating for London and for Londoners. Only four London boroughs are completely unaffected. I do not have time to go into some important general issues to do with the provision of affordable housing, so I will instead focus on the impacts in relation to housing benefit in Hackney and more widely.

In addition to the cap on benefit levels, we will see an impact due to the local housing allowance level being limited to the 30th percentile of a local reference rent. There will also be a devastating impact due to the perverse proposal to impose a 10% cut in benefit for those who are unemployed for more than a year, which will be particularly hard for young people aged 18 to 24, who are among those hit by the highest levels of unemployment. That is a particular concern of organisations such as Catch22, which is a charity that works with young people.

More than 650,000 homes are rented in the private sector in London, so this subject touches the lives of many people. More than a third of those homes are rented to families who receive the local housing allowance. High rents in London are not a new phenomenon and are driven largely by a housing shortage. Figures provided by London Councils show that when the local housing allowance was introduced in 2008, the rent charge for three-bedroom properties in central London was £700, which is twice the level of the proposed cap. Looking further back to 2005, the then local reference rent, which excluded the top end of the market, recorded the rental market as follows: £435 a week for two-bedroom properties; £546 a week for three-bedroom properties; and £625 a week for four-bedroom properties, all of which are above the cap recently proposed—some seven years later. It seems that the Government are making decisions without looking at any evidence or at history. The lack of affordable alternatives in London meant that the previous Government’s desire to achieve a reduction in rents through the introduction of the local housing allowance was not fulfilled, because local housing allowance rates have risen as they chase the ever-increasing level of rent in the wider market.

According to a parliamentary answer, 14,000 households will be affected by the changes. The Minister has acknowledged the impact. We need him to tell us what measures will ameliorate those changes, if the Government go ahead with them. I should like the Minister to explain that figure and to say how the private rented housing market will be able to cope with the likely upheaval that it suggests. In addition, he needs to address the impact on families at a human level.

There is an assumption that people will be able to move to lower-price properties, but the pace and scale of change will present a challenge in that regard, even without the huge impact that there will be on children and families, and on low-paid workers. It is important to ask where that low-rent property will be available. It will not be available in my constituency. Will my constituents be forced to move to the borough of Barking and Dagenham, which is no doubt delightful, but not convenient for work and schools for my constituents with Hackney connections? The impact, including the social impact, on those few boroughs that will be unaffected could be huge.

For those listening to this debate who are not aware of the situation or are not from London, I point out that all central London boroughs are affected, including that covered by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—the whole of Hackney—as well as Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond and Wandsworth. The changes will have a particular impact in London.

It is interesting that the Government have professed their intention to get rid of the Minister for London. That is all very well, but I believe that there is a spokesman—or spokesperson—for London. However, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been asleep on the job because it seems that this measure has been advanced without any understanding of its wider impact, particularly in London, which is the driver of our economy. The Mayor of London has also written to the Government to outline his concern.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Lady accept that the level of housing benefit—and how it is set—affects the rental market? The National Landlords Association has said:

“Landlords will have to look at their profit and loss and decide how much they can afford to cut their rents by.”

The hon. Lady will have seen examples in the Evening Standard last night of properties being rented at almost double the market value to housing benefit tenants.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman brings me nicely to my next point, and I shall deal with his second point in a moment. Let me be clear that I am not saying that all is perfect with housing benefit, as the Minister, from his previous incarnation as an academic in this area, knows all too well. Although I have been unable to source the reference, I believe that the current Leader of House famously said, “Let housing benefit take the strain,” when a previous Government made changes following which social housing rents increased.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are grave perils in establishing a policy that affects one million claimants on the basis of what we know for a fact are some 30 extreme cases of the kind quoted by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier]

I agree. We must not lose sight of the majority of our constituents. Good law is not made on the basis of rare exceptions.

The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) raised an interesting point about housing benefit levels in the private rented sector. Some private landlords have been in touch with me to say that they are concerned that they will no longer wish to rent to anybody who is either in receipt of benefit or likely to be. Given the current economic situation, the group of people who are likely to be in receipt of housing benefit will grow, because many people could be affected over the next few years. We heard yesterday about cuts to the NHS, and job losses are coming from all directions. That will mean that for many people in the private rented sector who want stay in their home and their community, the only option will be to look to housing benefit to take the strain.

[Mr Heald]

Does not somebody have to speak up for the hard-pressed taxpayer? Average earnings—take-home pay—in this country are £374 a week, but the hon. Lady is arguing that people should be able to rent properties for amounts hugely above that.

[Meg Hillier]

There is an interesting divide in the Chamber—not on party lines, but on London and rest of the country lines. Those of us who represent London see the reality of the situation. Yes, the housing benefit bill has increased, but tinkering in such a way is not the solution. The subsidy needs reform, but it is flexible, and that flexibility is useful. In the current climate, with job losses looming, we tinker with such flexibility at our peril. If wholesale reform was being proposed, we might want to look at that, but at the moment we are talking about tinkering with the system in a way that damages London.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

We have a history of using market forces to force down rents, which clearly has not worked, as the riposte by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) showed.

[Meg Hillier]

One reason why that has not worked is housing shortages. However, the self-denying ordinance that I set out at the beginning of my speech means that I cannot talk about wider issues.

Flexibility is important, but it is being abused by the Government, who are proposing changes overnight that might be in place from this autumn—I look to the Minister to give me guidance about that. People who have signed a six-month tenancy or a tenancy with a six-month break clause, for example, will have little option but to fund that shortfall somehow, as I shall address in more detail in a moment.

There is also a proposal to link housing benefit to consumer price index inflation, which will have a big impact on tenants and landlords. Research by Shelter has shown that CPI increased by 15% between 1999 and 2007, while there was a 44% increase in average rents. Had the local housing allowance been set to increase in line with CPI in 1999, it would now be 20% below the level needed to rent the average property. Whichever way the cut is made, people on low incomes—those people are often working—or on benefits are expected to fund the shortfall from their income to stay living in their own homes.

The impact on children and families is pertinent in my constituency, because some 22% of residents are under 16 and a lot of families need homes. People often come to my surgery because they are unable to access social housing. They are advised that they should look at what can be provided in the private rented sector, and I am sure that colleagues are in a similar position. More than one million children—a third of them in London—are living in overcrowded conditions. The cap will only exacerbate that problem because families will be forced to move into smaller, cheaper properties, and perhaps to push out their teenage children as they get older so that they can afford the rent.

I need to touch on a problem in the north of Hackney—not in my constituency, but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington—where orthodox Jewish families will be severely hit. Such families typically have more than four children, and many of them live in the private rented sector, so the limit on benefit will have a devastating impact. The council and social landlords in Hackney will be unable to take the strain, so I need answers from the Minister on how councils will be supported in dealing with that.

Of the nearly 40,000 people in Hackney currently in receipt of housing benefit, just over 9,000 live in the private rented sector. Two thirds are in receipt of benefit, but one third are working tenants, many of whom would like to continue to work but, as a result of the proposals, will find a serious shortfall between their rent and the benefit provided for it, and will have very little income to make up the difference. In the three bands for the broad rental market areas that operate in my constituency—inner east, inner north and London central—all properties with more than two bedrooms are above the Government’s proposed cap. That is ludicrous. It means that those in Hackney living in a two, three or four-bedroom property—or a larger property—will have nowhere to go. They could go out of Hackney, but there are not many boroughs they could go to. I am not entirely clear how the Government propose to ensure that people can stay living in London—and, crucially, working in London and supporting its economy—because many people need that benefit to subsidise their rent so that they are able to live locally to their jobs.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I agree.

[Meg Hillier]

Does my hon. Friend wish to make an intervention?

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. Do not look for them.

[Meg Hillier]

There was some agitation behind me, Mr Hancock, and I thought that my hon. Friend wanted to intervene.

We must also consider the annual reductions in housing benefit payments. I can see why the Government see that as appealing from the point of view of money, but the impact on those affected is enormous—1,642 claimants will be affected by the bedroom size proposals in my borough alone, which is devastating. Shelter has kindly done some research that shows that the average three-bedroom household in inner-east London, which is a band in my constituency, will need to find an additional £35 a week to keep a roof over their heads. I do not know how people on the minimum wage or benefits can do that. For example, how will a pensioner surviving on £98 a week find that additional £35? Perhaps they would not be in a three-bedroom property, but they would still have to find some extra money. How will someone on the minimum wage—£218 a week—find that additional money?

Almost half of local housing allowance claimants already have shortfalls of almost £100 a month. Shelter is concerned, as am I, that the cuts could push many households over the edge. I have great faith in the Minister, because he is an expert in the area, and he has a great opportunity to do something positive for housing benefit. I hope that he is not a fig leaf for the coalition’s proposals, that he will genuinely look at the problems that the proposals throw up, and that he will come back with solutions that will, at best, ameliorate those problems, or delay them while better work is done to lessen the impact.

It is rare to have a Minister who is an expert. Governments often seem to conspire to put people in office who do not know much about their subject, but in this case we have a Minister who knows what he is talking about and can make a difference. I urge him to look into the matter with all vigour. I would also like him to answer some specific questions. What is the timetable for the welfare reform Bill, and are there any plans for the implementation of its measures, should the House pass it? Were it to go through the House in the autumn at a fast pace, when would the measures be brought in?

Will the Minister look at the following matters, which would not require primary legislation through that Bill: the reduction from the median to the 30th percentile for claimants of local housing allowance; the cap for each property size; the increase in discretionary housing payment, which I will touch on in a moment; and the change to non-dependent deductions? The Government can change the rules with a stroke of the pen, as we saw in the Budget, but that stroke of the pen devastates my constituents and many others. Is the Minister planning to consult on that, because we have seen very little consultation? We have not even seen an impact assessment. Rather than having evidence-based policy, for which the Government parties pressed when they were in opposition, it seems that policy is being made before information is provided to back it up. That is not the right way to go about things, and I hope that an impact assessment will soon be forthcoming.

I must mention the discretionary housing payment in the short time I have left. The Chartered Institute of Housing has conducted an analysis that shows that the suggested additional £40 million, which to the average man or woman might sound like a lot of money, does not go very far. If it is spent solely on making up the shortfall in rents due to the proposed drop, it would support only 4% of claimants facing the drop from the 50th to the 30th percentile for one year. It is just not enough. I do not know what will happen in my borough when people turn up to the housing office looking for alternatives, having been kicked out of their private rented properties. The borough will find it difficult to deal with the private landlords with whom it already has relationships, because they will not be keen to take people on and there will not be enough social housing. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

I am confused about some of the proposals and hope that the Minister can clarify them for me. I have already mentioned the welfare reform Bill, but what is the timetable for the more general changes and for the publication of an impact assessment, and what will that impact assessment cover? What is the rationale behind the proposals? We see a Government who are joined up in their coalition, and we have talked a lot about joined-up government over the past 13 years. As a former Minister, I am aware of the challenges that that presents, but to see such a disjoint in one Department is quite extraordinary. On one hand the Secretary of State is telling social housing tenants, “Move for the work and travel around,” and on the other hand private rental tenants are being forced to move, not necessarily to where the work is, but to poorer, cheaper places. It would therefore be helpful to hear the rationale behind the proposals. Will the Minister be candid and explain what discussion he, as an expert on the matter, has had with the Secretary of State?

What transitional arrangements will be in place for affected families? Will the change be sudden, because at the moment it seems that there will be no such arrangements? What support will councils be given, particularly with regard to discretionary housing payments? What will be the impact more generally on housing needs teams, which are already stretched? What conversations has the Minister held with the Department for Communities and Local Government?

If the Government’s apparent theory is backed by action and we see an influx of tenants seeking cheaper properties, certain boroughs will be particularly badly affected, so what support will there be for those boroughs? My colleagues, undoubtedly, will want to refer to that concern. Will the Minister share with us any analysis of an impact assessment on the private rented sector? I am not sure whether that will come in the impact assessment that has been proposed, but I have already heard landlords say that they will not rent to people on benefits. Will he tell us candidly what the chances are that we will make any difference by banging the drum about that in the debate? Have the Government made up their mind? Is that the style of the new Government, or is the Minister genuinely listening?

The Conservative Mayor of London and the Labour chair of London Councils have joined together—in the spirit of coalition government, I suppose—and have written to the Government to point out the error that they have made. In seeking to grab a headline and make a saving, the Government will have a huge impact on our capital. I do not claim that housing benefit is perfect, but to change it in such a way is just not the way to proceed. Where is the voice for London in the Government? I hope that the Minister will hear what we are saying today, as many London Members are present to hammer home our points. On this occasion, I agree with Boris, which is not something that I expect to say regularly. At least we have some voice for London through him and through Mayor Jules Pipe, who chairs London Councils.

In the past, Westminster council sold homes to discourage poor people from living in the area. Now we see a Secretary of State colluding in that by depriving lower-income households of the opportunity to live in whole swathes of London, unless they qualify for social housing. We can draw our own conclusions about what is happening, and you, Mr Hancock, are experienced enough for me not to have to lay it out. The quiet man is roaring in his own way, and it is our constituents and London’s economy that will suffer.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Thank you for being short and to the point. Hon. Members will have to be fair to each other, because some will be squeezed out of the debate if others talk for too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Not at the moment. I will take some interventions, but first I want to set the scene.

If we do not have a blank cheque, what do we do? What is a legitimate way to say that someone who takes a low-paid job typically chooses a rent around the 30th percentile? That number has not been plucked from the sky. If someone takes a low-paid job, they do not have an unlimited choice about where they live. They cannot live in as big a house as they would like. They are constrained in where they live. Why should our constituents who take a low-paid job with all the associated uncertainties and who have to restrict their housing choice be in a worse position than those—I do not use the words “scroungers” or “apartheid”, which have come from the Opposition Benches—who are, for example, unemployed? There is an issue about social justice.

[Meg Hillier]

The Minister is confusing things. In my constituency, people do not have a choice. To afford anything, they need the housing benefit top-up. That is because rent levels and the demand for property are high. If landlords do not rent to people on benefit, there will be plenty of people in the private sector who do not need benefit who will take those homes.

[Steve Webb]

Clearly, there is a differential impact in different parts of London; I do not dispute that for a second. Taking London as a whole, just a little under a third of properties will be available within the caps. Obviously, the figure will vary from area to area, and there are particular issues that affect central inner London.