Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I am not prepared to concede that. I am happy with the numbers that I have. I will go away and check them. I promise to write to the hon. Lady and apologise if I have got my figures wrong, but I think they are fairly robust.

Thankfully, Government Members know a little bit about employment. One or two of us have run businesses that have employed people. We also know what it is like to be made redundant. I was interested in the Secretary of State’s remarks on that. I know from my experience how unpleasant it can be and how difficult it is for families. I started a businesses when I was 26 with Government help under the enterprise allowance scheme, which is helping many thousands of businesses now. Back in 1993, £20 a week was not a lot of money, but it was enough to fill up my car with fuel, which enabled me to grow a business that was eventually acquired by a public limited company.

Let us see what we have done so far. The number of jobs is about 1.75 million higher than in 2010. Thanks to our plan, the economy is stable and there is no reason to believe that job numbers will not continue to rise. Some 80% of employment is full time. Since this Government took office, 1,000 jobs have been created every day. The youth unemployment claimant count has fallen to its lowest level since the ’70s. In the last year alone, there was a fall of 34% in young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and the claimant count has fallen every month for the past three years. The Work programme has helped almost a third of a million people into long-term employment since 2011.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very telling that the number of part-timers who would like to have full-time work has fallen by 140,000? That is a clear indication that full-time work is back.

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. There are people who enjoy working part time and feel that it suits their lifestyle. The figure that he mentioned is encouraging.

In my constituency, the number of young people claiming JSA has dropped by almost 40% in the last year alone. We have introduced a couple of schemes that are helping people into work or back into work. The Work programme is helping 1.75 million unemployed people. As of September last year, it had helped a third of a million people into lasting work. Help to Work, the scheme for long-term unemployed young people who have been in the Work programme for a couple of years, is providing community work placements. The Government have pledged to fund Help to Work with £700 million over four years, and it is helping 200,000 people.

The number of apprenticeships has more than doubled in this Parliament. Since the coalition came to office, 2 million apprenticeships have been started, which means that this Government have overseen the biggest ever boost to apprenticeships and fulfilled their commitment that there would be 2 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament. The apprenticeship grant for employers has provided for 92,500 apprenticeship starts, with 8,000 more in the pipeline. My constituency has seen almost 1,000 apprenticeship starts. I thank all the employers who have taken up the scheme and the excellent colleges that are delivering the training, including York college and Selby college. Apprenticeships give young people an opportunity to get on the work ladder.

The Chancellor has announced that from April 2016, employers will not have to pay employer’s national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25. That will ensure that even more apprentices are taken on. We have delivered more apprenticeships in two years than the last Government delivered in five. The Prime Minister has announced that a future Conservative Government would make a £1 billion commitment to deliver 3 million apprenticeships by 2020.

Those results show that we are on the right track, but there is plenty more to do. I am not minded to support a compulsory jobs guarantee scheme. It appears to be modelled on the Jobs Growth Wales scheme, which has helped only one in three of the young people who has applied and therefore comes nowhere near guaranteeing a job for all young people who are out of work for a year or more. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In all the debates on this issue, sweeping statements are made about how Labour Governments have higher unemployment at the end of their term than, it is implied, Tory Governments do. The Tory Government of 1979 to 1997 inherited an unemployment rate of 5.2% and left an unemployment rate of 7.4%, and in 13 out of 18 years unemployment was over 10%. We really should not take lessons from a party that produced those kinds of results during one of its longest periods in government in recent years.

I was slightly wrong when I intervened on the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams). Unemployment rose slightly between 1997 and 2010, in the midst of a world economic recession—it was 0.4% higher in 2010 than it was in 1997, and that is after a major recession. Between 1945 and 1951 unemployment fell, so I hope we will hear slightly less of that generalisation.

One of the other generalisations made by the Secretary of State was meant to frighten people outside this place with the notion that Labour creates a situation in which nobody works. He said that under Labour 20% of households had never worked. That is one in five of all households. If someone heard that, they would think it shocking and dreadful, but what he did not say was that 48% of those—nearly half—were students who had never worked because they were students, 14% were carers, 18% were sick or disabled and only 10% were unemployed.

The number of workless households has fallen slightly under this Government, but it has gone back to where it was in 2008. After the recession, there has finally been a slight fall in the number of households not in work, but, again, many are not in work because of caring responsibilities, because they have children or because they have taken early retirement. We must be realistic about the figures.

Conservative Members always throw figures at us to show how unemployment has fallen in our constituencies, but they always use the claimant count. The gap between the claimant count and the unemployment rate has been very high under this Government and that is something that we must consider. What is happening to those people who are unemployed but not receiving any benefit? Who are they, what is happening to them and how are they living? Are they getting any of the help that we are so often told about and that they are supposed to be given? I know that many of those people are living on much reduced incomes and many are not getting benefits, either because they have lost them in some way or because they have a partner in what might be only part-time work.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Listening to the hon. Lady is reminding me of Nicola Sturgeon’s speech. She is arguing for more borrowing, more spending and more tax, so is the hon. Lady buying into the SNP agenda?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We say that there is a different way to tackle the budget deficit. We said that we would do it differently in 2010. Of course, the Conservatives went to the electorate and said that they knew the answer and would eliminate the deficit in five years. They set about trying to do that and have manifestly failed. We said that we wanted to stimulate the economy rather than depress it as they did month after month in their first three years when growth fell. Despite all the measures in the so-called emergency Budget, the Conservative party has not achieved what it said it would.

We always have an argument about work experience, and the counterpoint to anything we propose is that the work experience scheme is, to use the words of the Secretary of State, unbelievably successful. As he constantly says, half the people who go through the work experience scheme get a job. What he did not say is that nearly half those who did not go through work experience in a matched cohort, according to the DWP’s own research, did not get a job. Being in the work experience programme did have an effect, but it was not the type of effect the Government suggest.

After 21 weeks, 50% of those who had been through work experience were back on benefits, but those who did not go through the scheme did not do much worse. There is no point in exaggerating these schemes. A real and proper job, which involves real training and will get people into permanent employment, is worth much more than a short-term work experience scheme, which is not to say that there should not be work experience. We are proposing that particularly for young people because they need it.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

It is simply not the case that people have been pushed out of London: 84% of the capped households in inner London that have moved continue to live in the central boroughs. The idea that hundreds of thousands of people would be forced out of London is simply not true.

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

The Minister is making a point about employment and people moving into work. Is not the end of dependency a huge social change? Each one of those people has been helped by this Government.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right.

According to the latest statistics, landlord claims for possession across the whole social rented sector are down 14% on the year, and warrants for eviction are down 3%. Housing association rent arrears have fallen on the year, and rent collections are stable at 99%. We have not seen a mass exodus to the private sector. Social sector lettings have increased, moves from the social sector to the private rented sector have fallen—down almost 20,000 since 2010-11—and, as I have said, the cost of paying housing benefit in the private sector has fallen in real terms for the past two years, in contrast to what happened when the Labour party was in power.

As we approach the general election, we face a choice. The Opposition talk about welfare waste, but they wasted £26 billion on botched IT and lost control of welfare spending when they were in government. They also wasted the lives of a lot of our constituents. At its peak, there were 5 million people on out-of-work benefits—1 million for a decade or more—while youth unemployment increased by a half, long-term unemployment doubled in two years, one in five households were workless and the number of households in which no one had ever worked almost doubled.

Pensions and Social Security

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012 provides for contracted-out defined-benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 3%. Increases are capped at that level when price inflation exceeds 3%. That, of course, is an entirely technical matter that we attend to on an annual basis, and not something that I imagine we shall need to dwell on today.

The second, smaller draft order comes about for a sequence of reasons. The Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008 gave the Government the power to abolish contracting out on a defined-contribution basis. A written ministerial statement set the point of abolition as 6 April 2012. In June 2011, the House debated and approved the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011, which makes consequential amendments to primary legislation, consistent with the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out. At the time of that debate, a minor defect in the operation of article 3 of the 2011 draft order came to light. I therefore made it clear to the House that I would return with a further amending order before the 2011 order came into force.

Accordingly, the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2012 will remove the exclusion of protected rights payments from what counts as income for the purposes of income payments orders made under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and from the scope of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which provides that guaranteed minimum pensions and protected rights payments cannot be assigned or charged. The draft order will bring consistency with our original policy intention, namely that the tracking of protected rights should cease after the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out.

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

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is really rather a tribute to his work that the orders are so non-controversial that there is not a single Opposition Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss the uprating of all the benefits that this country has? I pay tribute to him and congratulate him on that stunning achievement, which I do not think has ever been replicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is right that any single inflation measure will not capture the full diversity of circumstances. One of the main differences between RPI and CPI is that RPI includes mortgage interest, which is largely irrelevant to most pensioners. By excluding mortgage interest from its basket of goods, the CPI gives more weight to the things on which pensioners spend their money. Other things being equal, CPI will therefore tend to be a better fit with the spending patterns of pensioners.

The hon. Lady is right that rising fuel prices are an important issue. That is one reason why instead of simply doing our legal duty by the poorest pensioners, which was to uprate the pension credit by earnings only, which was 2.8%, we chose to do a full pass-through of the £5.30 basic state pension rise to the poorest pensioner on pension credit precisely because they have faced the pressures she describes. We are aware of that point and have sought to do something in this uprating measure to address it.

[Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. Does he agree that some quite significant changes are taking place in the hierarchy of indexes that can be used for uprating? For example, earnings, which was always thought to be by far the highest measure, is at the moment the lowest measure. In addition, changes in the housing market have affected the CPI and RPI differential. It is therefore a moving picture. It is not as straightforward as saying, “History tells the whole story.”

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. I noticed in the most recent figures that the gap between CPI and RPI was just 0.3%. That is historically low, but the numbers and relative values change a great deal. That is why our triple lock says of the basic state pension, “If it’s prices that give you the highest number, we’ll pay that; if it’s earnings, we’ll pay that; and if it’s 2.5%, we’ll pay that.” We were determined to ensure that pensioners got the best deal for the basic state pension whatever was happening to the relative value of those numbers.

As I made clear in my statement to the House at the end of last year, this Government will use the full value of the September CPI to uprate pensions and social security benefits from April 2012. At a time when the prevailing headline figure for CPI has already fallen to 3.6% and is forecast to fall further during this year, we shall be uprating the overwhelming majority of pensions and benefits by 5.2%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right that there were siren voices from some quarters suggesting that we could not afford, or that we should not go for, this inflation figure. He is absolutely right that the coalition parties decided that it was a priority. That is something that I am proud to be associated with.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the Minister agree that the Government have also gone further than they needed to on the pension credit? The requirement is to uprate by earnings but he has gone one better by increasing it by 3.9%. So not only were the siren calls resisted, but more generosity was shown to the poorest pensioners.

[Steve Webb]

There was indeed. My carefully structured speech is falling to ribbons. I was about to come to that achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

That is a matter that the Minister may well want to comment on in his response to this debate. In my view, the triple lock is certainly not the wonderful device that the Government maintain it is. As I have said, it is leading to a lower uprating of the basic state pension in the year ahead than if the RPI mechanism was still being used.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to exercise judgment about what the increase should be? One of the faults of the last Government was to be too rigid. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has already mentioned the 75p increase, but there was also the freezing of the additional pension, which, again, was considered a mean act. Is it not right for the Government to take a judgment and—on pension credit, for example—to make increases well above the rate that they have to use, which is earnings, and instead use a higher measure, in order to be fair?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is a different one from the Minister’s. The Minister says that because of the triple lock, pensioners are safeguarded and need not worry about what future judgments Ministers will make. In a way, I am rather more with the hon. Gentleman on this than with the application of the formula. Again, however, I would point out that last year—the first year that this supposedly wonderful mechanism was in place—the Government overrode it. I am therefore not quite sure what certainty pensioners would have for the future about whether, in the event of siren voices being heard—we heard about those earlier—the triple lock might be overrode in the other direction, if someone judges that to be appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

As I have said, in the first year that the triple lock was due to be put in place, it was overridden, so I am not sure about the certainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Oliver Heald]

The right hon. Gentleman is being a bit naughty. It is a general provision in many pension schemes that there is a method of indexation, and it is often permissible to exceed it. To exceed the triple lock is not to break it; it is simply to be more generous. I do not think that “overridden” is the right word to use.

[Stephen Timms]

I deny being naughty. I am simply making the point that the Government have been telling pensioners that they are now in a wonderful new era, thanks to the triple lock, yet it had to be overridden in the first year it was supposed to be in place because it was not delivering an adequate increase. I am not persuaded that the degree of confidence that Conservative Members believe to have been bestowed on pensioners is a reality.

Unemployment

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

That is an extremely serious problem for Birmingham, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to it, but there is a more widespread problem if the rate of people flowing off benefits into work is not rising. Research by the House of Commons Library for my office, which we are publishing this afternoon, shows that fewer people are flowing from benefits into work than at any point since 1998. That fall coincides with the Government’s decision last year to cancel the flexible new deal and the future jobs fund. Since January, when the future jobs fund ended, the percentage of people flowing off benefits and into work has fallen by a fifth. Between May and August last year, when the new scheme was being worked up, 86,000 fewer people came off benefits and into work than the year before. Surely Government Members would accept that that is simply not good enough.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the future jobs fund was not about providing long-term jobs, but about short-term work placements of six months in the public sector? What is the point of that? If he wants to talk about solid outcomes for the future, he should not be talking about the future jobs fund, because within weeks the people involved were out of work again.

[Mr Byrne]

Let me say as diplomatically as I can to the hon. Gentleman that since the future jobs fund closed long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has gone up by 43%. He must accept that the future jobs fund was helping to keep young people in work. We know, as Ministers accept, that keeping young people close to the labour market, close to jobs and close to the habits of work is a good thing.

[Oliver Heald]

We all agree that keeping young people close to the labour market is important, and the advantage of what the Government are proposing is that it is in the private sector, where the jobs will come, where those opportunities are being given. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that in all the years when Labour was in government the number of people not in education, employment or training stood at a very high level and barely moved, despite all the growth?

[Mr Byrne]

Let me repeat that when Labour was elected in 1997, youth unemployment was about 14%. It came down to about 12% before the recession and then, yes, of course it went up during the recession, as all unemployment did. But rather than sit there doing nothing, as this Government have over the past year and a half, we chose to act. That is why youth unemployment was coming down before the election and why, since this Government were elected, it has gone up to record highs and has done so again this morning. That is surely not a record of which the hon. Gentleman can be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is simply not correct. We managed a transition strategy that kept existing programmes going until the first part of this autumn, precisely to ensure that there was not a gap in provision between what we inherited and what we were putting in place.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend share my consternation that Opposition Front Benchers are saying that they would reintroduce the future jobs fund, given that it was an entirely public sector operation providing work placements but no permanent jobs for the future? Surely it is much better to go with the private sector option, as the Government are talking about. That is a way of providing jobs for the future.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree, and that is central to what we are trying to achieve. The measures that we are putting in place, which I will set out for the House in a moment, are designed to ensure that we help young people, indeed people of all ages, to move into roles in the private sector, where there is a long-term, sustained opportunity for them to build careers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. The statistics I will use are from the Office for National Statistics, but my experience is as a manager of a centre for unemployed people before I came into the House. I saw at first hand the failure of economic policy. That is what unemployment is: a failure of an economic system. It is not “a price worth paying” as a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said.

In the 1990s, I ran a centre that helped young people to get back to work. We gave them life experiences and choices. Whether in the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary sector, those experiences were valuable tools and gave skills to young people. It is a shame that Government Members rubbish schemes involving the voluntary and public sectors, because people need help to get those necessary skills; they do not need Government Members to attack the public sector.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is something of a deception to put a young person in a job for six months with the idea that it will lead to something at a time when the public sector is being cut? Surely it is better to give that young person a private sector job opportunity or work experience that has some prospect of leading somewhere.

[Albert Owen]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what a deception is: it is the Government saying that they will introduce a scheme next April when youth unemployment is going through the roof this month and last month.

[Oliver Heald]

It isn’t!

[Albert Owen]

Of course it is! The hon. Gentleman really needs to look at the ONS statistics. In every corner of the UK, youth unemployment is going up. Young people are facing unemployment because of the Government’s record.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Listening to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), one would have thought, “Oh, the Labour Government did a marvellous job. Then along came this coalition and they mucked it up.” One would never have thought it was the Labour Government who beggared this country, who borrowed and borrowed and borrowed again, who gave us the worst deficit in the G20, who doubled national debt, who sold our gold at a record low price—£23 billion down the drain—who took £5 billion a year out of our pension funds, and who gave back our EU rebate of £7 billion a year and got nothing in return. Then, there was the moment of salvation—the last general election. A moderate coalition Government came in and started to make the sort of decisions that needed to be made in the national interest—the sort of decisions Labour ducked. Now, though, we are told, “The consequences of those difficult decisions—they’re all your fault.” They certainly are not.

If we look at the Labour years, we see that, as always happens with Labour, unemployment went up—to 2.5 million by the time they left office. We see that youth unemployment rose by 270,000 under the Labour Government. Theirs was not a successful Government, but a Government who led Britain to the brink of bankruptcy. It is our Government—the coalition Government—who are rescuing this country. Of course it is not easy. It is right to say that every redundancy is a personal tragedy—of course it is. We must try to do all we can as a country to help people back into work, but my goodness, this Government cannot be blamed for the situation from which they are trying to rescue the country.

That Labour Government were also the Government who tried to hide from the realities. Take the vast number of people claiming incapacity benefit: it is this Government who are testing and ensuring that those who receive incapacity benefit are genuinely entitled to it, and that it is not being used to mask unemployment in areas where there is a particular labour market problem. Take Labour’s measures on long-term youth unemployment, where a training scheme was introduced after 12 months and the clock was started again, to mask what was happening in this country. Although 2.5 million extra jobs—half of them were part-time, of course—were created in the Labour years, they did not seriously affect unemployment, which was reduced by about 300,000. That is because the Labour Government were not really tackling the underlying problem of the 5 million people of working age who were not engaged in the labour market.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Given that is now clear that the benefits bill will rise by £29 billion—higher than the Government predicted—does the hon. Gentleman think that the plan is working?

[Oliver Heald]

I think that this Government are making a serious, determined and honest effort to help people in very difficult times. The hon. Lady talks as though there is no eurozone crisis and the world is not experiencing the problems it is experiencing, but those problems are out there. This is a difficult time politically and economically, yet this Government are trying to help people.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the increase in unemployment in the eurozone has been much slower than the increase here?

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady should talk to young people in Spain, where youth unemployment is very high—as much as 30%, I am told. The same is true in Italy. The fact is that youth unemployment is a European problem that must be tackled in the eurozone and right across the continent.

The Government are concentrating on a Work programme that, after 12 months, gives people individualised help to look at what skills and assistance they need to get them back into work, and that, for the first time, gives the disabled a chance of getting the help they need. That is a good thing. That programme and the youth contract, with its job subsidies and extra incentive payments, are not signs of an uncaring Government.

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

Everything the hon. Gentleman describes counts for nothing if there are no jobs for those people to get. That is the problem that we face today: there are simply not enough jobs in the economy for everyone who is out of work to get into work.

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady makes the very important point that we need growth in our economy, and that to achieve that we need a range of measures to stimulate growth. I agree, and that is what the Government announced in the autumn statement. She should not, however, treat the whole country as though it were the same. We have much lower unemployment in my constituency—indeed, it has fallen this month—and there is no doubt that jobs can be found, but that is not true everywhere. The picture is different in different parts of the country, but if one looks at the overall picture one can say, month on month, that we have more people in the work force than we had last month. We have seen an improvement in some parts of the country, such as the part I represent, so the picture is not hopeless. The Government have a difficult task and are tackling it seriously, but sometimes we should look a little more widely at the labour market and the trends within it. We are asking people to work to an older age and to take on jobs that they might not previously have done because they were on incapacity benefit or were otherwise out of the labour market. So, we are asking more people to try to find work against a background in which that is not easy, but I believe—certainly the research shows this—that it is possible for us to see our GDP rise and our people go into work. What the Government are doing is along the right lines.

Sir John Rose said in a speech about a year ago that in Britain we train people to be hairdressers when we need engineers and IT specialists. One of the good things about the Government’s apprenticeships and skills programme is that it is targeted on areas in which we have found it difficult to create skills and on areas that are hard to fill, so there is a better match between skills and vacancies. The number of vacancies runs at between 400,000 and 500,000 each month, about 40% of which are in areas with skills shortages or areas that are hard to fill. If we can better match the skills to the vacancies, that could help. Overall, I think the Government are on the right lines.

Welfare Reform Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I completely agree. The Government’s approach seems to be predicated on a view that local management will more accurately assess local people’s needs and use a range of local provision and services to support people in need, but that argument is flawed.

We have heard mention of credit unions and charitable support, as well as recycled furniture outlets and food banks. However, let me cite the example of an individual whose washing machine or cooker breaks down. They might be given a recycled product, but such goods are often much less energy-efficient than new goods, so that person will face higher fuel costs and will have no choice but to pay them with more of their low income. Such goods also lack a guarantee and have questionable reliability, so the approach might well be a false economy.

There is also a question of whether charities will be able to sustain continuing demand and, importantly, of whether the dignity of the individual will be adequately protected. I have heard many people—young and old—say, “I am not asking for charity. I do not want charity.” I fear that people will be deterred from applying to any scheme under which they will be referred to a charity and that they will therefore be forced into the hands of the high-cost lenders and credit companies.

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

I might have misunderstood the hon. Lady, but is she really criticising the charities that provide such services? For example, councils for voluntary service provide excellent second-hand furniture facilities. These charities are not undignified, but offer an extremely worthwhile service through which they provide good quality goods at reasonable prices.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I absolutely accept that, but some people do not want to be forced to use such charities as their only course of action. Vulnerable people on low incomes have a great sense of pride when claiming benefit. I absolutely believe that forcing individuals into the arms of charity will mean that they will instead go to high-cost lenders.

[Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I will not give way. I want to move on to the lack of an appeals process.

I regret the loss of the extremely useful digest published by the social fund commissioner that gave an overview of appeals and reviews. That was an invaluable tool for advisers. It assisted them to help their clients to obtain their rights consistently. Such consistency is extremely important. Without a universal scheme, it will be lost, so vulnerable claimants will be left with a patchy and inconsistent service. People might have a right of appeal or independent review but, depending on local authorities’ policies, one side of the street could well get a cash grant while the other side would be given advice about which charity to approach. In the context of homelessness, I have seen that one local authority’s interpretation of “advice and assistance” can be very different from that of the local authority that gives people a list of private landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

One of the Bill’s underlying principles is that it focuses resources on those who are the most vulnerable and in need. It is also designed to reduce complexity and to make the delivery of welfare support more effective and efficient. Clause 69 satisfies those requirements. Localising the delivery of the social fund will clearly promote a more joined-up delivery of services and support.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who seemed to suggest that benefit claimants should be entitled as of right to buy all their furniture as new, rather than resorting to sensible and reasonably costed alternatives? What person who starts a new home does not have to buy a little bit of second-hand furniture?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about taxpayers’ money, so we have to be resourceful.

I do not believe that Labour amendments 39 and 40 would make the delivery of the social fund more effective, and nor would they further support applicants and people in need. They would put additional bureaucratic burdens on the Government and risk delaying the implementation of the reforms. Amendments 53 and 54, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would dogmatically block change by retaining the existing top-down system that is nowhere near as effective as we want it to be.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) talked about several of the anomalies and dysfunctional problems in the social fund, as well as the National Audit Office’s criticism. Members of the Public Bill Committee know that the number of crisis loan applications has soared since 2006 from 1 million to 2.7 million, while more than 17,000 people have received crisis loans in the past 12 months. Given that such a significant number of people require multiple crisis loans, delivering the social fund locally will help to signpost them to support mechanisms, rather than encouraging the top-down approach that has been in place thus far. Many of the arguments put forward by Labour Members have been flawed and inaccurate, and I think that the amendments would be counter-productive to the Bill’s objectives.

Welfare Reform Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point, and to that extent the current system has a lot of attractions. The problem is that we will lose that system with universal credits. The question is: who will be entitled to free prescriptions? I do not imagine that she is arguing—as perhaps the Government will; I do not know—that there should be a cut-off point in income beyond which people suddenly lose all help for prescriptions. If that happens, we will create a serious and damaging cliff edge in the system, which everyone agrees is an undesirable feature. Our new clause 4 therefore proposes to address that problem, although there may be other problems as well. What I would dearly love to extract is a proposal from the Government, so that we can find out exactly what they intend to do, because so far they have been silent on that subject, as on all the others.

We have been told throughout these debates that the main point of the Bill is to ensure that people are always better off in work. Our task in Parliament is to scrutinise whether the Bill lives up to that laudable aim, but without knowing what the Government will do to provide help with child care, school meals or prescription costs, we simply cannot tell.

Frankly, it is an abuse of the parliamentary process not to tell this House what the Government’s policy is before the Bill leaves us. I do not accuse Ministers of withholding information from Parliament; the problem is that they have no more clue about their policy than we do. It is an astonishing and abject failure on their part. They made all these boasts at the beginning—their bragging ran away with them—but now they cannot deliver policies to substantiate those boasts.

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

Is it not a bit rich to put the case in that way when under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, who were in power for many years, these aspects were not covered by a benefit? There was no child care benefit or a school meal benefit as such. They were dealt with outside the benefit system, no doubt in a way that he approves of, as I probably do as well, but why suddenly bring these elements into the benefit system?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has a good deal more experience in these matters, if I may say so, than some of his Front-Bench colleagues who are dealing with them at the moment. Good provision, particularly for child care support, was of course made through the tax credit system. That strong support for the costs of child care is why there was such a dramatic rise in lone parent employment under the previous Government. I supported that and I suspect from what the hon. Gentleman just hinted at that he supported it and continues to support it today. The problem is that once tax credits are abolished and universal credit takes their place, we have no idea how child care is going to be supported in the future. That is why I am—rather modestly, I think—appealing for the Government to tell us.

State Pension Reform

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I did write the hon. Lady’s words down—in principle, she welcomed the Green Paper, so I am grateful for her warm comments about our proposals. She asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to respond to them.

The hon. Lady seemed to imply that women would get £145 anyway, so wondered why we needed to do anything. That, however, is decades away. Equality between men and women in the state pension system is decades away, and we think that is too slow. Many women who did their child rearing in the ’80s and ’90s got no state second pension protection because it did not exist at that time. They will be retiring over the coming years and we are now bringing forward that protection for them. We do not want to wait 20 years for equality.

The hon. Lady asked an important question about passported benefits and we will need to consider the implications of these changes for those benefits. She had the cheek to suggest that the winter fuel payment had been cut in comparison with what she would have provided if she were in office. She will be well aware that we are sticking precisely to the budgets that her right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote. He will know perfectly well how much he put aside for the winter fuel payments, and we are doing exactly what he planned.

The hon. Lady asked about the Pensions Policy Institute and its estimate that a £140 flat-rate pension would cost 1% of gross domestic product. What she may have misunderstood from the report is that the question it asked was what it would cost if that amount were paid to everybody. That is where its figure came from. We are saying that we will create this for new pensioners, because new pensioners face a new world in which they will work longer, retire later and have fewer final salary pension schemes, so we need a system that is fit for them.

The hon. Lady sought reassurance on two points and the answer is yes to both of them. We will honour past service and we will make an adjustment, as I said in my statement, for contracted-out periods.

The hon. Lady asked about the future of final salary pension schemes after 13 years of decline under Labour. She will be pleased to know that the National Association of Pension Funds—the trade body for company pensions —welcomes these reforms and supports them, but we are in dialogue with those operating large final salary pension schemes to discuss how these changes will impact on them and how we can work with them to move towards the sort of simpler scheme that they and we want to see.

The hon. Lady asked about merging what the Chancellor referred to as the operation of the tax and national insurance system, which is certainly at an exploratory stage, but he has made it clear that pensions will be protected under these changes and that the contributory principle will remain.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism for raising the state pension age. She referred to a crude formula, but there are options in the Green Paper. One is to have an automatic mechanism for raising the pension age as longevity increases; the other is to adopt a more nuanced approach to take account of a range of factors. We would welcome feedback on that.

Overall, I think the hon. Lady welcomed our proposals, particularly the fact that they will benefit women and self-employed people and will lead to a fairer system. She said that she wanted to see a fairer system; in office, the Labour Government never delivered one, but through this Green Paper, we will.

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

In welcoming the statement and the Green Paper, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a long-held ambition in the pensions world of creating much more certainty and transparency about the state pension system so as to encourage saving in the longer term, as well as on helping the more vulnerable groups he mentioned, such as women, who will get help that much earlier. Will he say more about the time scale? He talked about the long distance we still have to go before achieving justice for women, so what improvement will these changes bring and what is the Minister’s time scale?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings his great knowledge of these issues to the House and to the Select Committee of which he is a member. As he says, we need a simpler system. He will appreciate that these things take time; we will need to consult and then respond. In due course, we hope to legislate to re-programme the computers and so forth. As the Chancellor said, we are talking about some years to implement the reforms, but we are clearly keen to move forward as fast as we possibly can.

Amendment of the Law

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the right hon. Lady, because if anything she is always honest with her own side. I understand that quite recently she said that her own party had been pretty much unrealistic about the situation, and I seem to recall that she even said that it should be more specific about what reductions it would make. She was a part of a governing party that left this country with the worst recession, the worst deficit and massive debts, so I do not need to explain where we were in ’97; she needs to explain why we got to where we were at the last election.

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

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is actually the right hon. Lady who is something of an amnesiac? She seems to have forgotten the £5 billion a year taken out of pensions, and the fact that Labour sold the gold.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is, as ever, right.

It is worth reminding—

Welfare Reform Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

The employment rate under the Labour Government reached a record high and there were 64 quarters of consistent economic growth. The idea that welfare to work can work when the number of jobs is not growing is frankly laughable. There is an important lesson that we must draw from the past to get welfare reform right.

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

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I want to move on to a second lesson before I give way.

When we brought laws to this House to set new obligations for people to work, we ensured that set alongside them were new opportunities to work. We also brought determination and care to the business of legislation. In the Bill, there is determined carelessness.

[Mr Heald]

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that at a time when it is more difficult on the jobs front we should not make the effort to help people off welfare and into work? If people are capable of working, they should get help. That is what this Bill does. Should we sit on our hands and say that all is hopeless?

[Mr Byrne]

That was an extraordinary contribution. Of course we believe that extra help—for example, the future jobs fund, which the hon. Gentleman’s party closed down—should be given to get people back to work.

In looking at this Bill over the past few weeks, I could not but remember Lord Birkenhead’s description of Baldwin’s method of Government:

“He takes a leap in the dark, looks around, and takes another.”

That is the approach that this ramshackle Bill proposes for millions of people in our country—a leap in the dark. I hope that we can begin to sort out, as is appropriate on Second Reading, where the Government have got their principles right—some of their principles are right—and where they have got them wrong. The Secretary of State says he wants to set a new course. The problem is that we are not quite sure where it will lead.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome this opportunity to support the Bill, which will bring about probably the biggest change in the welfare state for 60 years. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on certain points. The Bill is about helping people into work and establishing big principles for the future, and it really is not good enough to make a speech saying, “We want to help people into work,” but then to deny the means to do that. He is saying that the Bill should not go ahead. He is saying that the details—which should be debated, I agree with him on that—are sufficient to allow him to deny this major Bill a Second Reading. Well, he is wrong about that. He has issues that he rightly wants to discuss in Committee, and he has the support of numerous groups throughout the country that want those points of detail to be considered. Yes, he is right about that, but, my goodness, he is wrong to say that the Bill, which does such important things, should not go ahead.

Let us consider the idea of the universal credit. We will finally be able to say that a person will always be better off in work. That is a big principle; that is important. I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that in his heart of hearts, yet he is saying that we should not introduce those measures. I notice that he is not prepared to listen to this—

[Mr Byrne]

I am listening.

[Mr Heald]

At the moment, it takes 45 minutes in a jobcentre to work out whether someone will be better off in work or not. The Bill will change that at a stroke. People will know that they will always be better off in work. That is an important principle.

My second point involves helping people to get into work, giving them support through the “black box” approach. This is something that Labour agrees with; the right hon. Gentleman actually trialled it when he was in government, and it worked. It is recognised internationally—

[Mr Byrne]

It is not in the Bill.

[Mr Heald]

Yes, it is in the Bill. The sanctions are about making the Work programme work. It will not work without sanctions and without the measures in the Bill. To deny the Work programme to people all over the country who should have help into work would be a big mistake. The right hon. Gentleman should support the principle behind the Bill.

My third point is that it is essential to make proper training available so that people can avail themselves of those training opportunities and then get the jobs that are available in this country. There are 500,000 jobs advertised in the jobcentres every month, but many of them are jobs for which people do not have the necessary skills. To introduce a system, through the “black box”, that will enable people to acquire those skills and get into those jobs is something good, and it is something that the right hon. Gentleman should support.

As for whether jobs are available, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party were in government many jobs were created, as he said, but the problem is that many of them went to people who were not from this country and had not been languishing on benefits for years. Members of the Select Committee visited Burnley earlier this week and we met people who were being helped to move from benefits into work. We found that many of them did not like the work capability assessments, so I hope that it will be possible for the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to make the Harrington changes before that scheme is rolled out nationally. I see him nodding. Some people there had not worked for 10 years, and said that they were pleased to have the opportunity to be trained and to look for a job.

Burnley is not an area where there are as many jobs as there are in Hertfordshire, which I represent, but even in areas where there are not many jobs, it is wrong to say to someone who could work, “No, we’re not going to do anything about it; we’re not going to train you; we’re not going to give you those chances; we’re not going to provide the Work programme.” By denying this Bill a Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill would be depriving people of all those things.

Let us take some of the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, such as child care. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that there will be child care; the black box works only if child care is available. Support for single parents to get into work is necessary, but it is to be provided. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the details in Committee, we would all fully understand that. I believe that it is a mistake for him to try to deny this Bill a Second Reading.

Time is whizzing by, but I would like to make two further points. Child support is an important issue in the Bill, and it has been troubling for a long time. If single parents are to get into work, it is important for them to be able to rely on child support payments coming in. America has a system whereby, once the figure is set, it is automatically deducted from the salary of the parent who has to pay it. In this country we have always denied that possibility, and said that we should not do that. However, if we are to say to many lone parents, “Look, we really want you to go to work”—and we shall be saying that to a lot more lone parents—we must find ways of ensuring that the essential payments from the other parent come through.

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

This will provide my hon. Friend with an extra minute to conclude his remarks. We very much welcome the work of the Select Committee, and I assure him that the points that he and the Select Committee raise will help us to shape some of the outstanding issues and the Committee debates that lie ahead.

[Mr Heald]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. One encouraging development is that many of the proposals in the recent Select Committee report on housing benefit change—proposals for improvements such as monitoring the changes as they are implemented—were accepted when the Government responded to it. It is particularly welcome that the original proposal for people to lose 10% of their benefits after 12 months has been abandoned. I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee is in her place, and she may catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye in a moment; we are all pleased that the Committee has been able to make a difference in that way.

Finally, let me say a few words about how the contracts for the Work programme are dealt with. It is important to have proper implementation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

With housing benefit rising 45% in recent years, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for serious concern?

[Mr Heald]

Yes, absolutely right. It is important to bear down on that through the sort of changes now proposed.

To return to the Work programme contracts, it is important to monitor carefully the performance of the contractors and sub-contractors to ensure that there is an equal level across the country. The Select Committee looked at the issue in a previous report on a pilot scheme in Glasgow. We felt that there were differences between the performance of the different contractors. Clearly, if there are weaknesses, it is important to address them, for the sake of all the people who want to find work. I am grateful for the opportunity to support this great Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I shall come on to the reforms.

The deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression, and the Government had a clear choice: they could halve the deficit in four years by focusing on economic growth and making the bankers pay their fair share while also making savings over time that are fair and do not harm economic growth. The alternative, which the Government have chosen, was to cut the deficit at twice that pace, clearing it in half the time—in four years. That is a “formidable” challenge, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that the Government need a plan B.

There is an over-reliance on savage cuts, particularly to public sector jobs and the welfare benefits we are considering today. That will throw whole communities into poverty, with a third of a million public sector redundancies triggering a further 1 million private sector job losses, which will cost an extra £7 billion a year in benefit costs and lost tax. The benefits of those thrown on to the dole will be cut, forcing them, in the worst instances, into community projects like criminals when they cannot find work. Why is this happening? It is happening because the Government have thrown a bucket of water over the embers of economic growth that Labour had kindled.

[Mr Heald]

That is a nice soundbite, but the policy will cost the taxpayer money. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is not giving money to people at the bottom of the pile, but we are talking about £2.6 billion to help poor people into work.

Housing Benefit

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I am just about to explain it, if the right hon. Gentleman would just exercise a little patience. If he had done his homework, he would know that his Department’s own statistics show that since 2000 more than half the increase in the housing benefit bill—54%—did not come from the few high claims. It came from poorer private tenants—those in low-paid work, and disabled or elderly people—claiming housing benefit. More than half the increase is coming from more people claiming, not from significantly increased rents. What Ministers seem to fail to understand is the number of households on local housing allowance who are in work. Over the past two years, there have been 250,000 new cases in work claiming LHA. During the recession, as wages and the hours that people were able to work fell, people turned to housing benefit and to LHA to stop themselves being made homeless. In recent years, during the recession, housing benefit has been vital in keeping people in their homes.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I feel that I should give way first to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman made that point in the debate in Westminster Hall. I will not pretend that our priority was council housing as distinct from social housing, because for Governments over many years there has been a move away from direct provision by local councils to broader social housing, principally provided by housing associations. We will happily stand comparison between the number of social houses that we built during our time in office and the number being trumpeted by those on the Government Front Bench. Incidentally, almost half of the 150,000 in the figure that is now being used by the Conservatives are houses that were initiated by the Labour party when it was still in office. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not think that that was a point worthy of the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern, I hope that he will back up the words of the early-day motion with his actions this evening and join the Labour party in the Division Lobby.

[Mr Heald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, as all commentators have said, that since the introduction of the LHA the transparency of it has led to landlords putting up rent? Does he not think that there is a duty on Government in these difficult times to do something about it?

[Mr Alexander]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is a difference between having a duty to act—and we support the case for reform in housing benefit—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know that that might be an uncomfortable truth for those on the Government Benches, but there is a difference between a duty to act and acting in such a precipitate and reckless fashion that it ultimately ends up costing the taxpayer more. I think the hon. Gentleman is just old enough to recollect that under the Conservatives in the ’80s and ’90s the impact of higher homelessness was a greater cost to the taxpayer; it did not lower bills for the taxpayer.

The core of the Government’s policy is their belief that by cutting or capping housing benefit—this has been the substance of a couple of interventions—they will reduce the level of rents in the private sector and thus reduce the deficit. In seeking to find a rationale for the scale and speed of the cuts, the Government seem to be getting themselves in some difficulty. The Daily Telegraph today sets out that LHA rents are rising faster than non-LHA rents in the private sector. The Government’s regulations require that the LHA rates are set at the median of the private rental sector rent, excluding those let to housing benefit claimants, so rent officers collect data on non-housing benefit rents in each broad rental area market and use that data to set the local housing allowance.

In passing, incidentally, if the Secretary of State is so concerned about rent levels in the private sector, will he explain why he decided to scrap our proposals for a national register of landlords or indeed for the regulation of letting and management agents, designed to give more protection to tenants? The sound of silence is deafening. Why did he bin the recommendations of the Rugg review?

--- Later in debate ---

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

After the election the Government found themselves in a situation whereby it was necessary to curb costs in a number of areas, and housing benefit was one of them. However, it is important to do so fairly and to bear in mind the policy’s overall effect. We cannot get away from the fact that housing benefit rents went up faster than the private rental market from 2000 right the way through to 2007. That is the evidence that was given to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. In 2008, the system changed, the local housing allowance came in and the situation became worse.

The National Housing Federation, in its evidence to the Committee, said that

“private sector landlords increased rents with the introduction of Local Housing Allowances… the average housing benefit reward for Local Housing Allowance cases is over £9 per week more than for people still on the previous scheme… the Local Authority Omnibus Survey…finds that Housing Benefit managers say that some landlords are using the transparency of the arrangements to raise rents to the Local Housing Allowance level.”

The British Property Federation said that

“rents in some areas have adjusted towards the local housing allowance rates and in markets where there are significant claimants this is seen as the ‘going rate’.”

Paddington citizens advice bureau in central London said that

“we understand the need to place a cap on rents paid by the tax payer, especially in central London where the LHA was spiralling out of control”.

I shall not cite any more evidence, but I remember that during the Committee’s previous inquiry into housing allowance earlier this year and before the general election, Blackpool, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) referred, was specifically mentioned, because the broad rental market area there included Fylde. As a result, all the rents in central Blackpool went up far faster and far higher than was expected, so it is not surprising that the change under discussion, which I hope will rectify the situation, will have an impact in Blackpool.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

In evidence to the Committee, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors told us that the average returns for private landlords in the housing benefit market were 4 to 5%. Does my hon. Friend agree that that seems to be a significant return for any private landlord?

[Mr Heald]

My hon. Friend, who makes an important contribution to the Committee, makes an important point. If we look at the effect of the policy, we find no doubt that landlords will reduce rents, because all the evidence to the Committee suggests that they will.

There are arguments about how much effect the changes will have, but the British Property Federation and the Residential Landlords Association have said that 29% of landlords would reduce rents voluntarily. The Cambridge university research for Shelter shows that 29% of tenants will not be able to negotiate a rent reduction or make up the difference. It concludes that of the remaining 29%, 50% of the group will be in difficulties because landlords will not accept the lower rents paid and will not forbear. It says that some £42 million to £82 million a year will be needed to help those who do not get that forbearance from the landlord, are unable to negotiate a change, and so on.

Let us bear in mind, however, that the Government have set aside very substantial resources for exactly this problem. One might say that the mid-point is around £60 million, which is the figure that the Government are moving towards, although the Secretary of State said, very reasonably, that he will keep it under review and see what exact figure is needed. It is completely wrong to suggest that the Government have gone into this without realising that they must match hardship if it is found.

[Mr McCann]

If this is about a recalibration of rent, why are the Government using the poorest and most vulnerable in society as a battering ram to get there?

[Mr Heald]

To be fair, the hon. Gentleman should think occasionally about the hard-pressed taxpayer. Working people on the lowest incomes pay lower rents than housing benefit claimants. Surely the principle should be that we all want to help someone worse off than ourselves, but that the average taxpayer should not be expected to put a person into a better position than he himself would ever be able to afford.

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

Would not a better approach be to follow the regulatory reforms in the Republic of Ireland and 40 other countries, and in New York city, where rents are capped for benefit recipients and for normal working people? That would enable the Government to control their benefits bill as well as making rents affordable for normal working people.

[Mr Heald]

As somebody who believes in markets, I think that what really needs to happen is that we have enough social housing. As the Secretary of State said, it is woeful that the previous Government, who were supposed to want to help people in that situation, did so little over all those years. I am very hopeful that the proposals will improve matters.

[Ms Buck]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Heald]

I am running short of time, I am afraid.

Let me turn to disincentives to work. The fact is that the Government’s welfare programme is all about trying to get people back to work. It is a big ambition to do something about the 3 million households where nobody works, even though there are people of working age.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Mr Heald]

I have got only a few minutes left, and I have already given way three or four times.

It is a disincentive for someone to work if they know that they will never be able to earn enough to pay their rent. That is a ludicrous situation in which to have trapped people. We need to tackle that problem, and there is no other truly sensible way of doing so.

[Ms Buck]

Just before this myth takes hold too completely, will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that just under half the recipients of local housing allowance are either in work or on jobseeker’s allowance? The Secretary of State confirmed that 90% of JSA claimants returned to work within a year. Constantly repeating the idea that housing benefit claimants are not in work is misleading the House, frankly.

[Mr Heald]

But the hon. Lady must accept that the Secretary of State has a grand ambition, which is to get people into work. One of the ways of doing that is the universal credit, which tackles the very problem that she is talking about. We should be supporting the Secretary of State, as a Parliament, for finally tackling some of these dreadful issues that have pulled our country back for so many years. The hon. Lady really must not go around telling people that 50% of such people are in work or on JSA, because 13% are in work, not 50%. Someone who enters work on low pay loses housing benefit very soon afterwards. Addressing that issue is one of the great improvements that universal credit will bring. I support the policy, and I believe that the independent evidence supports it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I am interested to hear that London is affected. We will see the consequences, but at present I am receiving different answers and people are reaching different conclusions. It is not entirely clear how the private sector will respond, but one thing is entirely clear: we cannot continue with the cost as it is now.

[Mr Heald]

When the London councils gave evidence to the Select Committee, they said that 40% of landlords would cut their rents.

[Amber Rudd]

The 40% figure is totemic in this debate. As we know, 40% of private rented properties are used by the Department for Work and Pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

From what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has said, I take it that he will be voting with us in favour of this motion, because it seems that that is where his heart lies, if nothing else.

The issue as presented by the Government is that we have a problem with housing benefit. Two explanations have been given for that. One is that local housing allowance levels are pushing up rents, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) dealt with that very well. The other is that housing rents and housing benefit levels are rising because there is a shortage of houses in this country. The hon. Member for Colchester said that that was the case, and I have a lot of sympathy with his point about the need for more social housing.

Let us look at Government policies on housing provision to deal with this fundamental problem. The hon. Gentleman mentioned social housing provision, but he ought to understand that this Government’s policy is to withdraw from social housing provision, and that is what they are doing. Under the comprehensive spending review, the budget for new social housing is being cut in half, and the half that is left will simply fund the houses to which the previous Government were committed, which is about half of the 150,000 target. Where will the other 75,000 come from? The answer is that there is an assumption that social housing landlords will raise the rents on new lettings to 80% of market rents and that that increase in rental income will then fund the building of these extra 75,000 so-called social houses. They will not be social houses, however; they will be houses at 80% of market rents—or at intermediate rents, if we prefer that term. Effectively, therefore, the Government are withdrawing from the provision of social housing.

I know some Liberal Democrat Members will not agree that that is what the Government are doing—indeed, the Lib Dem Communities and Local Government Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), said exactly the opposite in a recent Westminster Hall debate—but that is the policy. If it is not what they intend to do, the Minister who is currently in the Chamber should stand up and say so.

As the Government claim that their key policy is to reduce housing benefit costs, they must also explain how the two bits of their agenda join up. If getting housing benefit costs down is the right thing to do, will there not be an increase in housing benefit costs from these new 80% market rents they are going to introduce, and how much will they increase by? I have asked that question, but no one can answer it. Do the Government not know or have they not done the figures? Is this another consequence of the impact assessment that they have not done? The Minister has done a lot of jumping up and down in the Chamber today, but he is surprisingly silent and sedentary at present.

That is another major question to which we need an answer. Why are the Government intent on pushing up rents in the social housing sector? What will be the housing benefit costs of that, and is the fact that there will be such costs not an inherent and fundamental contradiction in the Government’s policy?

[Mr Heald]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the scope of the ambition of this Government. They want to get people back to work. They do not want there to be 3 million homes where nobody works and everybody is on housing benefit. They want to change that, and that is how the costs of welfare will come down.