State Pension Age: Women

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I agree with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). The WASPI campaigners are very passionate and tenacious, and one obviously sympathises with those who, having saved all their lives, feel they were not given adequate notice. Obviously there is a legitimate grievance there, but the point is that, as parliamentarians, if we decide to go through a Division Lobby and vote for something—to join a cause, to jump on its bandwagon—we must have a credible, funded policy to stand behind, otherwise we are selling snake oil. Once again, we have it from the SNP. It stills says we can use the national insurance surplus. I will read out a few more written answers about the ability to use the surplus, which is their policy for saving the WASPI women.

In March 2008, the former Minister Mike O’Brien said:

“Any surplus of NICs over social security benefits in any one year…is not…an extra resource available to spend.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 2605W.]

In February 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

“what assessment he has made of the merits of using future national insurance fund surpluses to fund an increase in the state pension.”

That was Labour’s policy at the time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), then a Minister, replied, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

“Any increase in the basic state pension has a cumulative impact on Government spending going forward. The Government consider the short-term use of the surplus on the national insurance fund in this way to be unsustainable in the long term.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1852W.]

That is not least because it has been in deficit and it is cyclical. I think that any of us who claim to support the WASPI women must say which line of taxation, or which line of expenditure, in the Red Book we are prepared to use to pay for this.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am afraid that the position of the Scottish National party is so obviously partisan and unaffordable that it does the WASPI campaign no favours, but for all that, there are women in my constituency who were not notified and who are clearly experiencing hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more constructive to consider sensible, affordable measures, such as the early draw-down of bus passes, which could help to address the genuine need that exists?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course there are measures that we can consider. My point is that unless we can identify specific lines of tax or expenditure to pay for them, the money will simply be borrowed and paid back by future generations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T8. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the inaccurate use of universal credit statistics can cause huge distress and concern to vulnerable claimants? Does he agree that everyone has a duty to check their facts before using them in this House?

[Mr Gauke]

I agree. May I give one example? Speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite recently, the Leader of the Opposition said:

“Gloucester City Homes has evicted one in eight of…its tenants because of universal credit.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 324.]

If that were true, it would amount to 650 tenants being evicted due to universal credit. Gloucester City Homes has described this as “not factually accurate”. In fact, a total of eight—not one in eight—tenants on universal credit have been evicted, all of whom had considerable rent arrears well before moving on to universal credit. I understand that one tenant had not been resident in their property for 18 months.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly and effectively, highlighting, too, the great deficiencies of the previous system. The simple truth is that universal credit is helping to get more people into work, which we can all welcome.

On the call for a pause, the shadow Secretary of State did not set out in detail what she wants to see changed through such a pause. What I did, however, hear this morning in the Select Committee was a Secretary of State who is listening, and who cogently set out how the staged roll-out is specifically designed to allow for lessons to be learned and subsequent roll-out to be refined and adapted where improvements can be made, but without the damage that will be done by pausing the roll-out.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

On the roll-out being staged, does my hon. Friend agree that a situation in which currently 8% of claimants are on UC, and the proportion will rise to only 10% by January, hardly amounts to a precipitate roll-out?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which highlights the point that both the Secretary of State and I have made, which is that this is being done in a very measured way.

I join other colleagues in welcoming the Secretary of State’s announcement in respect of the telephone advice line and the increased highlighting of the advance payments that are available. It is right that this help is in place, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to take a close interest in how well this is working, making changes where necessary, and ensuring that all those claiming are treated with respect and supported. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) set out, universal credit is about treating people with respect and supporting them.

In seeking to ensure that we learn from the roll-out of universal credit and make changes where we can, as the roll-out is designed to allow, we must never lose sight of, or put at risk, the significant improvement of universal credit on previous systems and the significant benefits it delivers in helping people into work and changing their lives.

State Pension Age: Women

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Here we are again. By my calculation, we have had no fewer than 10 debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber since 2 December last year. In 20 years, I have never known such parliamentary attention on a single subject that was either not instigated by the Government or subject to proposed legislation. We have had over 240 petitions, mass demonstrations by WASPI women all over the country, the best attended all-party group meeting—I am proud to be a co-chair of the group—and unparalleled activity in this Chamber.

As hon. Members have said, this problem is not going to go away: WASPI women are not going to go away and we are not going to go away, yet throughout the entire past 12 months there has been no movement whatever from the Government. There has been no recognition of the very real hardship now being suffered by some of the WASPI women, and no recognition of the disproportionate impact of pension equalisation falling on a minority—albeit a significant minority—of women. We have had three Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions who, notwithstanding my respect for the current incumbent, have refused to engage with WASPI women and sit around a table to hear what hardship is like in real life.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The WASPI women in Cheltenham I have spoken to broadly recognise that the SNP’s plan to reverse the entire equalisation process, at a cost of billions of pounds we do not have, is unrealistic and inappropriate. Where individuals can establish exceptional hardship due to circumstances beyond their control, however, is it not right to examine cost-neutral transitional measures?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to that in the very limited time available.

I am concerned that the Government’s amendment to the motion is just another example of them sticking their head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. I acknowledge the wisdom of Mr Speaker in selecting the Government amendment, rather than those in my name and other hon. Members, but it appears to have little to do with the subject of the debate—the effect of pension age equalisation on WASPI women. I welcome the average rise of £550 a year for 3 million women. I welcome the increases in the basic pension, which the Secretary of State talked about. I welcome the introduction of the triple lock. Frankly, however, to produce such an amendment adds insult to injury. WASPI women will not be able to enjoy those benefits for up to six further years. That is the whole point. These women will not qualify for the benefits for a much longer time and they need help now. In addition, and despite what we have heard, women’s life expectancy actually fell last year for the first time in many years. The Chancellor, understandably, recently declined to guarantee the triple lock for years to come. By the time many of the WASPI women qualify, they will not be able to enjoy the security of the triple lock. That is why I cannot support the Government amendment. I urge hon. Members to refrain from supporting it, too. Frankly, to vote for such a disappointing and inappropriate amendment would be an insult to the many WASPI women who have campaigned so hard.

I also have a problem with the SNP motion. Mr Speaker, you were lucky enough not to be here when the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) spent 36 minutes losing my vote. SNP Members have been unilaterally pushing this cause. I am grateful that they do so, but in Scotland they do not have to pay for it. That is why we never hear solutions from the SNP. The motion references the Landman report, which relies heavily on the magic money tree known as the national insurance fund. We know the fund has been in deficit and that the Government, who have a responsibility for pensions up and down the country, had to top it up. The SNP suggestion is, in reality, a pension fund-raiding exercise.

I am disappointed that Mr Speaker did not choose my amendment, simply because it asked for a dialogue to be opened up—that we prioritise looking at the most extreme cases of hardship, which we all now see in our surgeries. The amendment does not commit to specific substantial spending and it certainly does not call for a reversion to the pre-1995 status quo. We support pension age equalisation. It is just that the speed of the transition process has led to unintended consequences for a large number of women. Many hon. Members have seen cases at first hand in their surgeries. We just want to talk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

To be absolutely clear, the assessment is whether an individual can safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and in a reasonable time period walk a certain distance. It is not a case of saying that if someone gets to 19.9 metres, they qualify for the money, but if they get to 20.1 metres, they do not. It is assessed according to the criteria I have set out, and we will continue to make sure that assessors are aware of that.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T3. Un- employment in Cheltenham has fallen by 66% since 2010. Will the Minister join me in thanking staff at Cheltenham’s Jobcentre Plus office, who hosted a very successful jobs fair recently and who are working hard to bring opportunity to those seeking to get on in life and provide for their families?

[Priti Patel]

I am delighted to hear of the outstanding work undertaken by our local Jobcentre Plus staff. In fact, all our JCP staff across the country do great work supporting people, getting them off benefits and into work and helping to transform their lives. I am delighted to see that the employment rates in my hon. Friend’s constituency are going from strength to strength.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

That shows why we have to create opportunities, so that people can get into work, increase their hours—[Interruption.] Again, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley does not like creating opportunity. We can all play top trumps on trading backgrounds, but we have to create those opportunities for people, regardless of the challenges they face. My party values the prospect of the potential for people to have home ownership.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that under Labour the welfare system spiralled completely out of control? Crucially, in the words of the former Chancellor Alistair Darling, it ended up

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”.

Will these reforms not address that?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Not only did we see that under the last Labour Government we were talking about £3,000 per hard-working family, but the decision to reverse all these dynamic changes will have to be paid for—we cannot magically print money. I know that promising that would help in a potential future reshuffle, but back in the real world it will mean painful, expensive tax rises for hard-working people.

Universal credit is a significant welfare reform that is transforming lives. At its heart, this is about putting work first and ensuring everyone can realise their ambitions and improve their quality of life. It is part of our wider commitment to return welfare spending to a sustainable level and deliver fairness to the taxpayer. That will be delivered through reform, support and, crucially, creating opportunities.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

My point was that there is a cost. How people decide to distribute it is another matter. The one thing I do know—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

No, I will not give way.

The one thing I do know is that the people who will complain most about this measure in Northern Ireland—Sinn Féin—are not even here to defend the vulnerable, whom they will claim they wish to protect.

Government Members have talked about the measurement and recording of child poverty. I would have thought—indeed, the DWP review indicated—that the most important source of short-term child poverty, and of the length of time people are in such poverty, is the level of income. It stands to reason: you don’t have to be a genius to know that if you don’t have money, you’re poor. If you want to lift people out of poverty, what do you do? You ensure that they get more money. If we remove that as a measure, we ignore the most fundamental aspect of what causes poverty and what puts children in poverty. Yes, in the longer run, as the review says, educational qualifications, family stability and so on are important, but in the long run, as Keynes said, we are all dead. If we want to deal with the problem now, we cannot ignore the level of income.

Members from all parts of the House should be concerned about the way in which the Bill divides the cap into two. But that is not the end of the matter, because the Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State can review the caps at any time. All he or she has to consider is “the national economic situation” and

“any other matters that the Secretary of State considers relevant”.

Then the Government can introduce changes by regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am sure that all of us in this House believe in social justice, but I support this Bill because it recognises that the most effective tool to achieve social justice is encouraging work for all. It is work that provides dignity, security and life chances. It is work that improves general wellbeing and sets an example to the next generation. Work is at the centre of the Bill. It is a Bill that pivots our society from high tax to low tax, from low private sector wages to high wages.

It is worth noting that there are 2 million more people in employment now than in 2010. That means that, as has been said before but bears emphasis, there are now 370,000 more families with positive role models. Previously, one in five households had no one working. There is no social justice in that, as there is no social justice in unemployment. We should go further and I am glad this Bill agrees. Nothing less than achieving full employment should be our goal. That is why the imposition of a duty to report on progress to full employment is right.

So it is with apprenticeships. The coalition Government generated 2 million apprenticeships in the last Parliament. Our ambition now is to generate 3 million more. That is bold, but I am pleased that the Bill imposes a duty to report on progress so that this issue gets the attention it deserves. That should go hand in hand with ensuring that opportunities are made available to people, and children in particular, from all backgrounds—hence, the duty to report to Parliament on obligations to address life chances.

On welfare, it is correct to say that tough decisions have had to be made, but it is worth considering the context. Between 1997 and 2010 welfare spending rose by 60%. Tax credits, a measure originally expected to cost £600 million, which was the only reason Gordon Brown was able to sneak it under the nose of Tony Blair, now cost £30 billion. To place that in context, the defence budget is only about £35 billion. It is not right that this measure should effectively subsidise low wages in the private sector. It is unaffordable. But there is a question of resilience as well. Just before the 2007 financial crash Greece had a debt to GDP ratio of 100%. It meant that the cupboard was bare when the storm hit. Now in the UK we have a debt to GDP ratio of 80%. It means that we are spending £33 billion a year in debt interest.

It is also right to recognise that the bottom 3 million taxpayers have been taken out of tax altogether, and a further 26 million people have benefited from tax cuts. That is part of the context as well. The richest 1% now contribute 30% of the tax take. That is quite right. The richest 20% contribute 80% of the bill. That is right and it is progressive.

Finally, this is not just about social justice; it is about generational justice too. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to bequeath to them a country that can pay its way. Just as important, we must leave a country that can care for the next generation of vulnerable people. Thirty years from now, a young man or woman yet to be born will approach the state seeking help, having fallen on hard times. Our generation owes it to him or her not to leave the cupboard bare.