State Pension Age

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman walked through the Lobby with me in 2011 to pass the Pensions Act when the Liberal Democrats was a party of financial discipline, and I believe that we took the right decision at that time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the so-called cost-neutral option is far from it—it is neither workable nor cost-neutral. The Government are sticking to the position that has been in place since 1995. The Labour Government took the same position for 13 years as did the coalition Government in 2011.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Yet again, the Minister has tried to break things down to a binary choice between paying out lower pensions or increasing the state pension age. However, pensions are only one aspect of Government spending and tax-raising powers. His Government have chosen to reduce corporation tax, which will cost the taxpayer £50 billion by 2025, and other tax cuts will cost £15 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, the parliamentary arithmetic is in favour of some changes, so will the Minister take control and actually make some sensible choices?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman and I are going to disagree massively on economic theory and taxation. It is right to cut taxes for business, because businesses make the payments that pay for the public sector that we all support so much. The key choice is whether the Government increase the state pension age or pay lower pensions, but the hon. Gentleman seems unable to accept that, and I do not agree with his approach to taxation.

Motability

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We have to get the results from the NAO, from the Select Committee, and from the Charity Commission. However, my hon. Friend is right. This scheme, which was set up with the best intentions and good purposes, and has helped people, appears to have lost its way. It is only right that we help it to get right back on track to help the people it was set up to support.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State says that she got a concession five years ago, but nothing has changed in five years on executive pay and concerns about reserves. Why is the National Audit Office only now being asked to do this, five years late? Is it just because of newspaper publicity?

[Ms McVey]

It is because of the tenacity of certain Members, for sure, and the freedom of our press, which has aired the case. This has been looked at for quite a few years, and I got concessions from Motability, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, but now we need to take the matter further.

Private Sector Pensions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The people watching at home who have a pension or are thinking about investing in one want to know that they are safe. They also want to know what the Government are doing to ensure that they will be safe going forward. That is exactly what we in intend to do with the White Paper by reinforcing corporate governance measures and making them tougher.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

As Carillion owes millions of pounds to subcontractors such as small plumbing companies, it is inevitable that there will be other insolvencies. If a plumbing company goes under, its nominal liabilities transfer to fellow employers through a multi-employer pension scheme. That is clearly unfair, but it happens because the PPF refuses to act as guarantor of last resort for multi-employer schemes. When will the Government end that anomaly? If they will not, will they support my ten-minute rule Bill that would sort out the situation?

[Ms McVey]

I am aware that that was debated with the Pensions Minister 10 days ago, and he is looking specifically at the points the hon. Gentleman raised then. The hon. Gentleman is fighting a good cause, and I am sure that we will be able to come up with a solution.

Plumbers’ Pension Scheme

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirstene Hair]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and completely agree that there is a role for the trustees to play and a role for the Government to support that process.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On the suggestion about the trustees doing an evaluation, I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but will that evaluation not just highlight the ludicrous position facing people that she has already highlighted? We need not just an evaluation, but a different way of evaluating debt, because, as was correctly pointed out, this is fully funded anyway. It is actually a change in the legislation that is needed rather than the trustees doing that evaluation.

[Kirstene Hair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do go into that particular point in a little more detail further on.

Plumbers have been checkmated by the legislation. They have no room to manoeuvre, no way out. Every possible move, it seems, will trigger the employer debt and bring it crashing down on them and their livelihoods.

The damage to some plumbers’ mental and physical health, family life, and financial security cannot be overstated. When these constituents appeared at my surgeries, their levels of desperation were evident. For many plumbers, the only option is to carry on—to defer retirement and even take second jobs, and hope that some form of relief comes before it is too late. These people are not fat cats trying to avoid paying their due. For years, they have dutifully paid their contributions into the scheme. They are ordinary entrepreneurs who wanted nothing more than to give their employees a decent pension. That is a principle that I strongly stand by and I know that it is one that this Government stand for, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this debate on this very important subject. I assure her that I have been listening carefully to her contribution and to those of other hon. Members. I would like to try to provide some reassurance, explain some action that is being taken and answer the individual solutions that she has so sensibly set out.

Since my appointment last June, I have spoken and written to several colleagues in the House who have made representations—much as I have heard this afternoon—on behalf of their constituents. I utterly recognise that it is a worrying situation for the employers in the scheme and for the individual pensioners who are so affected. The previous Pensions Minister committed to look at this issue following previous debates, and we set out some matters in our Green Paper, which was published in 2017. As my hon. Friend outlined in her speech, we will shortly be setting out the response to that in a White Paper. Although I cannot say in advance what the White Paper will say in detail, I will address some of the issues that she has raised. I will also attempt to demonstrate the difficulties we face in what is clearly a very complex area.

Let me first address who this matter affects; there are effectively four or five parties. There are the employers, who continue to be involved with this scheme, and the trustees, who are responsible for ensuring that the pension scheme is run properly and that the members’ benefits are secure. More specifically, there are the members themselves, who have worked hard to build up a pension and deserve to have it paid in full. I should also mention the PPF, which provides vital protection to members of pension schemes whose sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. However, the PPF is funded by levy payers, which are of course other pension schemes, and their sponsoring employers. Therefore, any changes would have a wider impact on the financial levy of other pension schemes and consequences for the amounts that they would have to pay. By any interpretation, this is a complex situation, and building a consensus solution that is fair and equitable to all is extremely challenging. We have to be conscious that this scheme is one of many multi-employer schemes, and that any changes for this particular scheme—however worthy and important it may be—has consequences in some shape or form for other schemes.

It is important to remind hon. Members of the background to this issue. The original legislation was introduced to protect members’ pensions, and was then strengthened in 2005. A key principle is that employers cannot walk away from their obligations if they have promised a pension to their employees. Before they do, they must ensure that members’ pensions are paid in full. In a single employer scheme, this would be through buy-out with an insurance company. The similar arrangement in a multi-employer scheme, as we have here, is the payment of an employer debt. This helps to ensure that members receive the pensions they have worked for and been promised when their own or former employer ceases to participate in the scheme.

The current regime is also designed to protect those employers who remain in the scheme and are also a party to this problem; they would be left to pick up the shortfall left by departing employers. The Government estimate that there are about 25 other multi-employer schemes with a design similar to that of the plumbers’ pension scheme. It would be difficult to consider introducing specific legislation about one particular scheme’s problems, especially as, since 2005, many similar such schemes have paid their section 75 debts and complied with the current legislation. That includes employers who were personally liable for any debt they may have owed.

There are also nearly 1,000 “last man standing” multi-employer schemes in total. To comply with legislation, a debt should be calculated when individual employers ceased to participate in a multi-employer scheme. It is with regret that, since 2005, the trustees of the plumbers’ scheme have been unable to calculate or collect the debts, so the scheme has not been able to provide any estimates on the levels of potential debts. It is therefore absolutely important that all concerned do not create any unnecessary anxiety by speculating about the size of any potential debts before they are calculated. I am pleased that this week the scheme that we are concerned with has announced plans to consult on a methodology for calculating debts in February. That is long overdue. It is vital that that work is now done urgently so that all concerned about all aspects of the scheme, and on all sides, can work together to agree a way forward with employers affected.

I want to use this debate to try to suggest possible solutions and to answer the laudable recommendations made by my hon. Friend in her outstanding speech. Employer debt legislation applies to all schemes, not just the plumbers. The Government are fully aware of the issues that employers have faced in complying with this legislation. A significant number of changes have been made to legislation, in response to representations made by employers, whereby only part of the debt or no debt may be payable. Those arrangements are available under current legislation and are being used right now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), whom I know well, mentioned plumbers who may be personally liable and are genuinely worried that they may lose their homes. It is worth pointing out that the majority of employers in this scheme are limited companies and are protected through limited liability, but I turn to the situation affecting unincorporated and incorporated employers.

For those who may be personally liable, there is already legislation that could assist. The personal assets of an incorporated employer are protected. Employer debt valuation is not required for an employer to become incorporated. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned the flexible apportionment arrangement. This is already available in legislation and can be used to help unincorporated employers incorporate without triggering an employer debt. The arrangement has been used by employers in this scheme and is one of the arrangements that can be used to help unincorporated employers, some of whom have been mentioned in correspondence to me and in this debate, provided that the scheme is no worse off from a funding perspective.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s point about the funding test. The Government believe that it would be wrong to remove the funding test as it provides an important protection for both members and the remaining employers. The plumbing pension trustee has a streamlined flexible apportionment arrangement process in place to help small employers wishing to incorporate. Individuals who want more details on this arrangement should contact the plumbing pension scheme to discuss their situation and whether an FAA can help. I urge individuals worried about their personal liability to contact the scheme to discuss their situation in more detail.

Once the debts have been calculated, the scheme trustees can also use their discretion not to pursue a debt when they expect that doing so would represent a disproportionate cost to the scheme.

I turn now to the key issue of a deferred payment scheme. We have recently consulted on regulations, including a new deferred debt arrangement, that will enable employers in multi-employer pension schemes to defer the requirement to pay an employer debt in some circumstances. This is a further tool for those affected by this problem. We aim to introduce these regulations in April, which will provide valuable breathing space for employers, so that they can consider their options on how to meet their obligations.

The issue of orphan liabilities was raised, as well as those relating to members whose employers no longer participate in the scheme. I am aware that the scheme would like to exclude orphan liabilities from the calculation of employer debt. That requirement to meet a share of orphan liabilities is common to all multi-employer schemes and is an integral part of member protection. I understand that the scheme has substantial orphan liabilities from employers that have departed it, but it is important to note that these liabilities are dated from the period both pre and post-2005. Changing legislation to enable schemes to accept less money when they are underfunded simply passes more risk on to members as it moves schemes further away from being able to secure members’ benefits in full.

I await the White Paper, but the Government’s provisional view is that it would not be right or fair to pass this burden on to the PPF and its levy payers, which are, of course, other pension schemes, and their sponsoring employers, who have no connection with, or responsibility to, the scheme. The legislation only requires departing employers to pay an employer debt when there are insufficient funds in the scheme to secure members’ benefits in full.

Several people talked about the funding of the scheme. In 2014, as an ongoing technical provision, the scheme was funded to the tune of 101%, but on a buy-out basis, it was deficient by 25%, hence the difference in the valuation and difference of comprehension on that point. That also answers the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

It is accepted entirely that this is a very complex area in which there is no quick fix; no solution is pain free. It is only right that any changes should be carefully thought through, proportionate and justified. The Green Paper explored many of the issues facing defined benefit schemes. In particular, consolidation could provide a long-term solution for schemes currently unable to afford a full buy-out. Further work is being done on this, and it would not be right to pre-empt the outcome, but the White Paper will be delivered in the fullness of time, relatively shortly.

[Alan Brown]

I appreciate the fact that the Minister says the White Paper will come shortly. Will he say how soon and what the timescale will be for legislation after that? That is the important thing. Also, I am bringing forward a 10-minute rule Bill on this issue, and I would be happy to work with the Government on aspects of it, if he is willing to do that.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. I will write to him with a bit more detail, because the time available to me is limited. The White Paper will be delivered at some stage this spring. Spring is an elastic term in the House of Commons, as he will understand, but it will certainly be delivered before the summer period. I look forward to his ten-minute rule Bill.

To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, she has set out a number of positive solutions, some of which we have been able to take forward. I am aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group and I am happy to meet the group to discuss the matter in more detail. I will certainly write to individual colleagues with more detail on what we have discussed today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing a very important matter to the House. I want to make it absolutely clear that we accept that this is a complex but very upsetting situation for many of our constituents. We have all had individuals attend upon us with a file of papers and say, “Please help me sort this out.” I appreciate that problem and welcome the fact that she has taken the time to bring her constituents’ concerns to the House. I hope that I have provided some comfort about what we are doing now, some aspiration about what is coming in April and the opportunity to address the problems raised by individual constituents, because we take this matter very seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

13. What recent representations he has received on pension transition arrangements for women born in the 1950s.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I receive a variety of representations, whether that is orally, in correspondence in writing, or in debates.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for that non-answer. Figures I received from the House of Commons Library show that tax giveaways on things such as inheritance tax and corporation tax will cost the Treasury over £60 billion by 2025. Should a caring Minister and Secretary of State not argue that, instead of giving money to the rich, they could use it for transitional arrangements and ending austerity?

[Guy Opperman]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to two particular points. The first is that we have differing views on taxation. The Government believe that cuts to corporation tax assist job creation—the jobs we need to pay for the public services we have. Secondly, I refer him to the fact that, under the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number, the Scottish Government have powers in terms of working-age people and to take action on the specific points that he keeps raising, but that the Scottish Government fail to do anything about.

Pension Equality for Women

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

We need to address where we are now—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady asked a question. Do we think that the change was wrong? I think that the 1995 changes were incorrect. Under the Pensions Act 2011, those changes—they were originally spread over a longer period—were expedited, and the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has elaborated on that point.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech. To clarify, the Pensions Act 1995 was introduced by a Tory Government, while the Pensions Act 2011 was put through by a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. Why the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) referred to Gordon Brown is a mystery.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I stand to speak again on behalf of the 6,500 women affected in my constituency. I would also like to pay tribute to the campaigns up and down the United Kingdom, including by my local Ayrshire WASPI group.

In the last debate on this matter, I compared the different world that many Tories live in with the real world, and then—right on cue—up popped the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), arguing that women aged 65 should be able to get apprenticeships. It beggars belief to think that that is a credible option. It is even worse given that year-one apprentices over the age of 19 are entitled to a minimum wage of only £3.50 an hour. In the same debate, giving bus passes at an earlier age was also considered to be some mitigating concession, but that would go no way to make up for this injustice. In Scotland, the Scottish National party Government already give bus passes at the age of 60, so that measure would do nothing for women in Scotland. While I was thinking about these things yesterday, I got an email from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is looking to raise funds to bring back the Royal Yacht Britannia. You could not make it up—that is actually considered to be a serious campaign when there are all these other injustices.

In the real world, life expectancy has dropped this year for the first time in decades, as actuaries have shown. In the real world, The BMJ report estimates that 120,000 deaths are attributable to Tory austerity measures. In this real world that I live in, I get notified of a WASPI woman, suffering from cancer, who is likely going to lose her house. Her husband is stressed by having to work much longer to try to keep the household going. Meanwhile, her MP, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), has confirmed in writing to another Ayrshire WASPI woman that

“in Government difficult decisions have to be made and whilst in opposition you can promise the earth but do not need to deliver it”.

No one here is promising the earth. We want justice for these women. They should get the money that they are entitled to.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock also says that he believes

“that successive Governments have taken adequate steps to inform the public about these changes”.

That is effectively saying that it is these women’s fault that they did not know about the changes. No one can credibly say that successive Governments have notified the women properly. Then there is the myth the Tory Government mitigated the impact on those most affected by the Pensions Act 2011. That is like saying that the school bully only took £2 rather than the £3 they demanded, so it is therefore a £1 mitigation measure. That is not mitigation at all.

In the wider world of the Scottish Tories, they argue, on some technicality, that the Scottish Government have the powers to do something about the situation. The Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to deal with pensions. At the same time, the Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by £2.5 billion and the Scottish Government are having to mitigate the effects of other measures, including bedroom tax and council tax. It was Westminster that refused to devolve pensions and voted against full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, so there is no way that the blame can be levelled at the Scottish Government.

There have been arguments about how much mitigation measures may cost and the Government have queried the independent report commissioned by the SNP that said that such measures would cost £8 billion. In the last debate, the Government Minister threw in the figure of £70 billion for good measure as an estimate of the cost of reversing the Pensions Act 2011 and the Pensions Act 1995, even though we did not call for that. I have updated figures from the Library on the Government’s tax giveaways such as corporation tax, inheritance tax, savings concessions and the higher tax threshold, extrapolated until the year 2025. These will cost the Treasury £63 billion. Corporation tax giveaways until 2025 will cost £50 billion. There is the solution. It is staring the Minister in the face. These are the choices that the Government have to make.

Work, Health and Disability

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

If I may, I am happy to look at that particular issue and write to the hon. Lady.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My constituent Jade Minto suffered mental health problems and had to give up her work, but she subsequently gained a qualification to enable her to work in the care sector and has been offered a job. That sounds like a good news story, except for the fact that she is on ESA and allowed to work only a maximum of 16 hours of week, and the DWP will not allow her to take up the position because she needs to do an internal training programme that would take her over the threshold of 16 hours a week. Will the Government look at ending this crazy situation?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I agree that that does not in any way sound like a sensible situation. The good news I can give him is that such a situation will not happen once universal credit is brought in.

State Pension Age: Women

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

When people ask me what it is like at Westminster, I often observe that I live in a parallel universe from the Tory party—I am sure its Members feel the same about me. We all inhabit a political bubble, but let me recall some of the concerns I have heard from Tories recently: whether Big Ben is going to bong, whether Clerks in the House are allowed to wear wigs, whether it is credible for MPs to ask questions in the Chamber without wearing a tie—these are some of the things that have concerned Tories recently. I have also heard them say that when they visit jobcentres people tell them, “It’s great being on universal credit. When I’m on universal credit, I find work”. They do not see the irony that they are meeting these people in the jobcentre. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), said that WASPI women should be able to get apprenticeships, and the Chancellor recently said that there were no unemployed people. They have also said that the majority of people knew about the changes to the pension age. They live in a different world from me.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

What exactly is wrong with a 65-year-old woman taking up an apprenticeship? I am not talking about all women, but why would the hon. Gentleman deny any woman the chance to work at 65?

[Alan Brown]

That is a nonsense argument. I would hope that that woman would not get paid the apprenticeship levy. The Government have a shocking minimum wage for apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) stood up during the Budget debate and said that the people of Taunton Deane had thousands of pounds more in their pockets. It really is a different world.

People on universal credit struggle as their debts increase. Food bank usage is up. Only this month, a British Medical Journal study estimated that up to 120,000 deaths in England and Wales could be attributed to the Tory austerity policy since 2010, and people over 60 are most at risk. This only touches on the world that some of the WASPI women inhabit: having to sell homes and downsize to survive; mental health problems associated with the stress; the humiliation of seeking jobs; marital pressure and break-ups; just living with the daily anger and disappointment at being let down by the state and a Government who refuse to listen.

In a previous SNP Opposition day debate, the then Secretary of State challenged our £8 billion costed proposal to reverse the Pensions Act 2011. He said that we need to look at the longer-term horizon and that it would cost £30 billion to 2025. Well, just a few months later, the Tories trooped through the Lobby following the Budget and voted for £30 billion of tax cuts, including £23.5 billion in corporation tax giveaways. So even if it would cost £30 billion, it could have been found, and it was there in the last Budget. The Budget, which has just been passed, contained a £3.2 billion stamp duty tax giveaway that will only increase house prices, £3.7 billion for Brexit preparations and an additional £7 billion for a national productivity fund. I welcome that money, but it shows that the magic money tree exists and that money can be found whenever the Tories want it.

We have heard the argument that the state pension age equalisation is all because of the bad EU—it is EU rules that have forced it upon us—yet I have not heard one of the mad Brexiteers in the Government come to the Chamber and say, “One of the benefits of leaving the EU is that we can reverse the 2011 Act”. They have never said, “Let’s stick it to the EU, take it on and give these women what they deserve”. It is high time they gave them what they deserve, and it is high time the Government started listening.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

Let us look at what happened when Labour launched its tax credits with a big bang. I am still helping constituents who got caught up in that mess, which included £2 billion in underpayment and overpayment errors.

It is worth reminding ourselves why universal credit is such an important plank in welfare reform. It is about helping people to prepare for a return to the world of work. It is designed to mirror the world of work. When people return to the world of work, it underpins the promise that people will always be better off in work than on benefits. Under the old system, there was a cliff edge, because it made sense to work for only 16 hours or less, and it cannot be good if we end up penalising people because they chose to do the right thing and go to work. The old system punished work. People could lose more than £9 of every £10 extra they earned. Under Labour, the benefits system was so complicated that some people found that there was no point to working more because they would lose more in benefits than they would earn in work. The old system failed to get young people into work. The old system subsidised low wages by letting the tax credits bill get out of control.

It is also worth remembering what work does for people.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On the point about low wages, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should pay the real living wage, not the kid-on living wage?

[Stephen Kerr]

I am very proud that the Conservatives have introduced a national living wage. It is worth remembering what work does for people. It instils a sense of confidence and of self-worth. It enables people to manage their own affairs and make their own decisions for themselves and their families, to be independent, and not to depend on anyone or anything. That is what work does, and that is why it is so important to record again today that more people in this country are working than ever before and that unemployment is at a 40-year low. That is a good thing that we should be proud of. Universal credit is helping people to get back into work. Those on universal credit are four percentage points more likely to be in work within six months than jobseeker’s allowance claimants in similar circumstances. Universal credit underlines the salient principle that people should always be better off in work than on benefits.

I pay tribute to the Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions. What I have experienced from them is a genuine willingness to engage and to receive feedback, and that is both positive and constructive. They have been impressively responsive to my concerns, and more especially to the cases of my constituents that have been brought to their attention. I am pleased that there has been a response to the urgent need for payments. Claimants who want advance payments should receive them within five working days, and for those in immediate need there is a fast-track payment that can be received on the same day. I was initially concerned about the payback period for advances, but I am assured that repayments can be delayed for up to six months, and for a further three months if necessary. I have also received reassurances from Ministers about the issues that face rural constituencies.

I repeat that while I accept that no one should have to wait for six months with no money, it should not be beyond our means to make improvements in the system to reduce the time before the first payments are received. However, it would be wholly wrong to pause the universal credit full service roll-out now.

Housing and Social Security

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It is important to continue the work on leasehold reform, and we will certainly take it forward. Let me take this opportunity to thank him for all the work he has done and the contribution he has made to the debate on that reform.

During the general election, we heard from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and his colleagues about Labour’s housing policy, and no doubt we will hear more shortly. Let us be clear, however, that it was not just an attempt to wind back the ideological clock to the 1970s; it would have undone so much of the progress that we have made during the past seven years.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Since 2012-13, when the Government introduced the increased discount for right to buy, 51,352 homes have been sold, but for so-called one-for-one replacements over that period, there have been only 9,344 starts—starts, not completions—on site. Is that what the Secretary of State means by a new attitude to social housing?

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will very clearly hear the Government’s track record on social housing.

This is the progress that the Government have made since we first took office in 2010: we have a resilient, growing economy; the labour market is in its strongest position for years; and the claimant count is at its lowest level for 45 years, with millions more people in work compared with 2010. That is thanks in part to our wide-ranging process of welfare reform: 520,000 people are receiving universal credit, which is helping to transform lives and to make sure that people are always better off in work than on benefits. In the past year, the number of disabled people in work has increased by more than 170,000. The Department for Work and Pensions has launched tailored support for people with a disability or ill health through our personal support package. We of course remain committed to a strong, humane welfare safety net. Every year, we spend some £90 billion supporting families, people with disabilities, jobseekers and people on low incomes. By 2020, we will have given local authorities £1 billion in discretionary housing payments for residents who need extra help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I should like to associate myself with the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members across the House about the tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. We on these Benches welcome the inquiry and believe that lessons must be learned from this event.

This Queen’s Speech seems to me to be one of the most shambolic and lame legislative programmes in my lifetime. The Tories, cowed by their unnecessary election defeat, are working on a weak mandate with no authority. Since the start of the month, we have seen promises ditched as they face defeat across the House. Pledges on introducing an energy price cap, disastrous social care plans, a free vote on foxhunting, the introduction of grammar schools and the setting of an immigration target have all been dropped—and yesterday we witnessed no mention of the deliberately harmful plan to scrap the triple lock on pensions.

Yet again, this Queen’s Speech proves one thing: the Tories will continue their obsession with austerity in spite of a sea of evidence against it. Let me be clear: another Parliament of cuts is a choice, not a necessity, and it is a choice that has been decisively rejected by voters across the country. The Resolution Foundation has warned that the continuation of austerity will drive the biggest inequality since the times of Margaret Thatcher. Much of the power to legislate on housing has been devolved to the Scottish Government. We ended the right to buy some time ago, taking the view that unless housing is replaced, many people are left disadvantaged and lacking the opportunity to obtain affordable housing. That is something that this Government have failed to learn.

Today’s debate also focuses on social security. The High Court ruling on the benefit cap highlights the fact that it causes real damage to single families. When will this Government learn their lesson? The incomes of the poorest third of working-age households will fall by 10% over the next four years, driving a further 1 million families across this country into poverty. By 2021, there could be more than 5 million children across the UK—a number equivalent to the total population of Scotland—living in poverty. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and that is a disgrace.

We on these Benches choose to take a different approach. Unlike those on the Government Benches, and many on Opposition Benches, the Scottish National party has consistently and unapologetically opposed austerity. Our approach to the public finances would balance the UK budget for day-to-day spending by the end of the Parliament. It would set debt on a downward path and, crucially, free up an additional £118 billion of public investment. With our plans, we could stop the further £9 billion of additional social security cuts that this Government will inflict. That would mean that those on low incomes who rely on in-work social security, and the vulnerable and disabled, would not have to face further punishment. Despite the rhetoric from the Labour party, its plans fail to provide the same protections.

In my constituency, the cost of welfare reform is clear. Despite my constituency’s assets, almost 25% of the children in Lanark and Hamilton East grow up in poverty. Under this Government, my constituents have had to endure a reduction in employment support allowance, a freeze on in-work support, cuts to their personal independence payments and the removal of their mobility cars. Worst of all, they are now subject to a family cap and a despicable rape clause. Austerity has failed my constituents in Lanark and Hamilton East and it has failed constituents up and down the country. However, we are, for now, in a better position than some.

My constituency is yet to face the massive ramifications of the roll-out of universal credit. Later this year, the UK Government intend to introduce universal credit in South Lanarkshire. Only a few weeks ago, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations highlighted the policy as a key concern in tackling homelessness across the country. The Scottish Government have plans to mitigate some of the worst elements of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, including the roll-out of universal credit, but that will not help families across the rest of the UK. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that we should spend nearly £400 million mitigating poor decisions made by this UK Government. Universal credit will make some of my constituents homeless, and despite the work of the local authority and the third sector, the UK Government are intransigent and unrelenting in their approach.

It is clear that austerity has failed the economy and failed society. It has driven the people we should protect into poverty, hunger, humiliation and crippling debt. I had perhaps naively hoped that their defeat earlier this month would make the UK Government reflect on their approach to social security, listen to the experts, and inject the investment necessary to genuinely rebalance the economy and create a fairer society. At its very heart, that is what a social security system ought to do, yet that is exactly what this UK Government have failed to do.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that austerity has failed and that the social security system is not providing the necessary safety net. Does she agree that the application of a proposed cap on housing benefit for supported accommodation is another issue that this Government need to reflect on? Otherwise, this austerity will hit the most vulnerable: those in women’s refuges and other vulnerable adults in supported accommodation.

[Angela Crawley]

Absolutely. Statistics already show that over 80% of the cuts fall on women. That is simply not good enough.