Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

3. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

16. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

18. What steps he has taken to increase the number of younger workers subscribing to pension schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The lifetime ISA can supplement somebody’s pension but is not a pension as such.

[Andrew Bingham]

Will my hon. Friend agree that the new state pension provides clarity for younger workers, who will now know what to expect from their state pension when they reach pensionable age? Will that not have a positive impact on how much they choose to save in a private pension, because, with this clarity, will come understanding and an ability to plan?

[Mr Vara]

I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The previous state pension system was extremely complex—it was difficult for people to know how much state pension they would get before they reached the state pension age—whereas the new state pension provides clarity from an early age as to what they can expect. In future, they will know that they can expect over £8,000 a year from the state—a solid foundation upon which to plan their own retirement savings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I would make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the Department has a range of quality measures to drive improvements in the accuracy of decision making. Secondly, I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People that only 2% of decisions on PIP claims are changed, and that is on the basis of new evidence being submitted.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)]

As part of our reforms to give people greater confidence and certainty about what they will receive in retirement, we are improving the help on offer to people with keeping track of their previous workplace pension pots. I can inform the House that our new online Pension Tracing Service goes live today. This new service will make it simpler and quicker to reunite people with information about their lost pension pots; it will take a matter of seconds, rather than days, as under the old system.

[Andrew Bingham]

I welcome enabling people to find their old pension pots, but what more can the Secretary of State do, and we do, to enable people to understand how much they are likely to receive from those pension pots, when they have found them?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. Many of our reforms of the state pension are designed to make things simpler and less confusing for people. Since the new state pension was introduced in April, everyone has been able to get a personalised state pension statement, based on the new rules, and there is a new online service, “Check your State Pension”, which offers a quick and accessible way for people to access information about their state pension.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

The case the hon. Gentleman highlights is similar to cases Members raised in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the issue was debated. It is for the Minister to respond to the question of what will happen to those diagnosed before the 2012 threshold.

The arbitrary nature of yesterday’s ruling caused great distress to a small group of about 250 claimants who already receive payments from the scheme. Will the Minister comment on the unjust nature of the anomaly created by Lord Freud? Instead of sticking to yesterday’s written statement, the Minister should stand up today and announce that he will backdate the increase to include victims who have successfully claimed at the lower, 80% rate during the scheme’s first eight months.

It is obvious that Lord Freud has had to take the action he has, because, as the Opposition predicted, the number of claimants has not reached the inflated figure the insurance companies came up with to make the compensatory package look punitive—the number is far smaller. Lord Freud admits:

“The number of claimants has proven to be below the level anticipated.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

Yes—a whopping 70% lower. He might put this down to the fact that insurers are only now tracing an increasing number of policies, but if we start with an overestimate of the number of claimants, we cannot simply put any decrease down to the fact that the industry has only belatedly got its act together and started tracing compensators for remedy.

It should not be forgotten that, over the life of this Parliament, pressure from mesothelioma campaigners has pushed the Government to increase compensation rates from the initial derisory offer of 70%, to 75%, then to 80% and now to 100% of the level of civil claims. I pay tribute to those resolute campaigners. The Labour party consistently called for an increase during the passage of the Bill, so I am delighted to see that increase come to fruition.

The scheme is funded by a levy on insurers that provide employers’ liability insurance. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government gave assurances that the levy would be set at a rate equal to 3% of the gross written premiums on employers’ liability insurance policies. Ministers told us that the insurance industry could afford to fund the scheme through a levy of 3% of GWP without having to pass on the costs to its customers through additional premiums. The expectation in the original impact assessment was that the levy on the industry would raise £338.7 million over 10 years.

In a ministerial statement on 28 November 2014, the Government announced that the levy would raise £32 million in the first year. That in fact represents a levy equivalent of just 2.2%, not the 3% originally agreed to and promised. That was due to the fact that the employers’ liability market accounted for GWP of £1,418 million in 2013—an increase of 4.8% on the previous year. From that figure, it is clear that a 3% levy would net £43.6 million, not the £32 million cited in the ministerial statement. The Department for Work and Pensions does not contest those figures, and it verified them at a meeting involving Lord Freud and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. I guarantee that, if the converse had happened and the take from the insurance pot at 3% had been lower than anticipated, the Government would not have argued to increase that percentage. Why, then, are they letting the insurance industry get away with a lower yield because the market has increased?

The issue is a cause of major concern, because the Government explicitly promised that the 3% target would be met in year 1. The importance of the additional 0.8% differential cannot be understated. If the Government chose to act, the additional £11.6 million difference could enable payments to be made to sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases, who are currently not covered by the scheme, or in respect of those diagnosed before the scheme was in place, such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The additional £11.6 million could provide much-needed investment in medical research—something I will say more about shortly.

The Minister was not in his current post during the passage of the Bill; his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was. The right hon. Gentleman declined, in Committee, to enact Labour’s proposal for the 3% levy to be enshrined in law. Instead, he gave Members a cast iron guarantee:

“I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I met Lord Freud, my fellow Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, this morning. Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 117.]

He was unequivocal. What do they say about actions speaking louder than words? If the Government do not commit to ensuring that the insurance industry will meet the 3% levy target, they will leave themselves open to legitimate criticism from mesothelioma campaigners that they are on the side of the insurers, not the victims, and are letting insurers walk away from that cast iron guarantee. That is why we pushed for the 3% to be enshrined in law.

I should be grateful for answers to some questions. Why are the Government set to renege on the promise that they made to mesothelioma victims and Members of this House about the 3% levy? Given the present understandable uncertainty about whether the 3% levy figure will be met, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to amend the 2014 Act to enshrine it in law? If applications to the scheme increase steadily, as more people become aware of it, and claims exceed 3% of gross written premiums, will the industry pay out from the windfall that it gets from the underpayment it currently presides over? What work is the Minister doing with hospitals, colleges, surgeries and GPs to make those diagnosed with mesothelioma aware of the scheme, to encourage increased take-up? How much is his Department spending on promoting the scheme to sufferers?

I will remind the House—as if this were needed—of what a terrible disease mesothelioma is. Thankfully, it is not a common cancer, but according to Cancer Research UK it is responsible for 2% of all cancer deaths in the country. The latest statistics showed that there were 2,570 known cases, which was a rise on the previous 12 months, with 2,429 subsequent mesothelioma deaths in the same year. A victim is likely to live less than a year after contracting mesothelioma. The disease is commonly associated with men who have worked in heavy industry, such as the construction industry, which is why I am proud of the lead that my union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, has taken on the issue.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case. As he says, mesothelioma is an asbestos-related condition usually associated with heavy industry, but the incidence in my very rural constituency is higher than the national average. I just wanted to point out that it does not necessarily occur only in big cities and industrial centres.

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely agree, and was not painting a picture in which only males or people working in heavy industry are affected. Women who never worked and who were housewives have contracted mesothelioma, because they washed clothing with asbestos dust and particles on it, which they breathed in. I was not trying at all to underestimate the impact on the rest of the country.

There cannot be a debate on mesothelioma without talking about research. When the 2014 Act was being considered, the late Paul Goggins tabled amendments on that very matter, which I moved. The Government contended in the House of Lords on 9 December 2014, at column 1710, that funding for mesothelioma research is available, but no good research proposals have been forthcoming.

There are two points to make. First, it is estimated that at present £1.4 million is spent on mesothelioma research. That can be compared with research spending of £22 million for bowel cancer, £41 million for breast cancer, £11.5 million for lung cancer and £32 million for leukaemia; we can quickly see that mesothelioma is at the bottom of the research pile. Lord Alton of Liverpool previously made it clear that there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma.

Secondly, the Government’s position on the quality of forthcoming research proposals is contradicted by the recent announcement that Aviva and Zurich have commissioned the British Lung Foundation to undertake £1 million of mesothelioma research. That is of course welcome, but is not a statutory requirement. It is voluntary, and future moneys may not be guaranteed, but it shows that the industry believes that quality research proposals exist and that it is only the Government who are not willing to back the scientific community to lead on the matter.

I come back to the point about excess moneys raised from the full 3% levy being utilised for the benefit of the victims. Should an additional £11.6 million be available in the pot, even if claimants were paid out at 100% of their claim, as they now will be, there would still be about £5 million left, which could be devoted to research. Why is that not happening? Under section 13(2)(b) of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 the Government can use the amount recovered from scheme payments under the recovery of benefits legislation to help pay for the costs of the scheme. Now that the costs of the scheme can be covered completely by a 3% levy, there is no need for the subsidy. It is currently estimated that nearly £5 million will be recovered from payments. That money should be used to fund medical research, not to subsidise the insurers unnecessarily.

I have several questions for the Minister. I would appreciate it if he replied today, but if he cannot answer them all, perhaps he would write to me and the shadow Minister on each point. The written statement released by the Department yesterday says:

“Following discussion with the insurance industry, I have agreed to introduce some additional administrative safeguards to ensure that we can all be confident that the scheme continues to act as we intended and remains a scheme of last resort.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

What assurances can the Minister give sufferers and their families that that will not lead to increased restrictions and a higher threshold for proof of employer negligence? Why did he meet only with the insurance industry and not with victims to discuss possible amendments needed in the scheme? Why was the need for additional safeguards not picked up during the passage of the Bill through both Houses? Are the Government still lending the insurance industry a full £17 million, even though the take-up of the scheme is lower than expected?

Lord Faulks told peers,

“The Government fully recognise the need to stimulate an increase in the level of research activity and continue actively to pursue measures to achieve this.”

What measures are the Government taking to increase the amount of research? In the same House of Lords debate, Lord Faulks went on to say:

“It is absolutely not the case that there is insufficient funding for research. As I have said more than once, the case is that, at the moment, there is not a suitable number of applications for research.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2014; Vol. 757, c. 1710-1712.]

What specific number would constitute a “suitable number” of research applications? Has that figure been met?

Finally, there has also been a question of whether insurers have made a profit out of the system because the levy target of 3% has not been met. Lord Faulks agreed to look into that. Can the Minister update Members?

For the public and the mesothelioma victims support community to have confidence in the scheme, it is vital that in the first instance the commitments that this House made to the victims should be met without any hiccups or backtracking. Failure to enforce the 3% levy and to commission the necessary research, with adequate and proportionate funding, would be a dereliction of duty and undermine the entire scheme. We owe it to the victims of this cruel disease to get things right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

1. What funding her Department is making available to ensure the final 10% of premises get access to superfast broadband.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

5. What funding her Department is making available to ensure the final 10% of premises get access to superfast broadband.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The Government have committed a further £250 million to extend superfast broadband to 95% of UK premises by 2017. In addition, we are investing £10 million to find ways to provide superfast broadband to the hardest-to-reach and remotest premises.

[Maria Miller]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this. I think she will be pleased that the existing £132 million Superfast Cornwall project is already delivering superfast broadband to 82% of homes in her area, and there will be further opportunities to extend coverage with the additional £250 million that we have announced. Projects in her area will clearly be eligible to bid for such funding.

[Andrew Bingham]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for those assurances. In my constituency of High Peak, which is very rural, many farms and businesses are in the last 10%. They have many other below-spec utilities, such as poor electricity supplies, and it is crucial they get good quality, fast broadband. It is as important for the last 10% as it is for the first 10%.

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the Government are already investing more than £7 million in superfast broadband in Derbyshire, and the additional money that we have pledged—£250 million—will give further coverage in his area, but it will be up to the local authority to ensure that it is targeted in the right way. I am sure he will work with the local authority to ensure that that is done well.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan]

As they say in the best pantomimes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—you could not make it up. It is incredible that the clawed-back money goes to the insurance company.

To move on to ring-fencing and the 3% levy, insurance companies will get a good deal from the Bill, as I have said. Even if they keep paying a 3% levy until no more mesothelioma cases exist, it will be a good deal. It is therefore completely right that the 3% should be ring-fenced. Colleagues have already mentioned many ways in which the Bill falls short, but the extra money that ring-fencing the levy gives could pay for some of those shortfalls: to compensate victims of other asbestos-related diseases, to research a cure or, indeed, to increase the fund payments to a much fairer 100% of the average compensation. The insurance industry well and truly expects to pay 3%, and is financially prepared to do so. There is no reason to let it get away with paying less.

I well understand that the Minister, who is a decent man, claims to have done his best on the issue, but I still think that there is room for improvement. I encourage him to continue to pursue insurance companies for a better deal for those who deserve it—the victims and their families.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I do not intend to delay the House for too long. Many of the points I wanted to make have already been very eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I pay tribute to the Minister and the Government for introducing the Bill, which I support.

As has been mentioned, mesothelioma is an industrial disease, but I assure the House that in my constituency—constituencies do not get more rural than the rolling hills of north Derbyshire—the incidence level of mesothelioma is higher than the national level owing to some of the industries operating there. As all of us in the Chamber and more widely know, through casework and from friends and relations, mesothelioma is a truly dreadful condition that causes great pain and is incurable.

I added my name to amendment 1, which I am now speaking to, because I think that 70% to 75% represents progress. In an ideal world, 100% would be the ultimate progress that we would want. However, the 80% figure is a good compromise: it is viable, doable and, as other hon. Members have highlighted, achievable. I do not think that insurance companies will walk away. In the world we live in today, more companies are concerned about their reputation, and given the cross-party strength of feeling in the House about compensation for mesothelioma, it would be reputational suicide for insurance companies to walk away now. I think that we can squeeze that extra 5% out of them, which would be better in the pockets of the victims of this dreadful condition than anywhere else.

I am proud that the Government have gripped the issue, but if we agreed to amendment 1, they could grip it just a little harder. That extra grip would make the mesothelioma sufferers’ prognosis that little bit better and I for one, as a Member representing a constituency affected by this dreadful condition, would be that little bit prouder and stand that little bit taller after what I had done here today.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Like other hon. Members, I start by mentioning my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has done much on this subject. He organises an annual memorial event in Greater Manchester, in the city centre, and as a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament I have always been pleased to attend, so I thank him for his work in that regard. I pass on my best wishes to his family, and I hope he will be well again soon.

Hon. Members will be aware that Rochdale was home to the world’s biggest asbestos factory—Turner and Newall dominated the town for many years—and it is fair to say that the legacy of asbestos still haunts our town and its people. Walking around my constituency, it is hard to find anyone who has not been affected in some way by asbestos, whether through family members, friends or colleagues, many of whom have been affected by asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos destroys lives and breaks families. In Rochdale, it has left a community legacy in the form of a massive derelict factory site that nobody is prepared to remediate effectively.

The lack of justice and compensation for many of the victims of asbestos is a scandal that has lasted for far too long. I am pleased that the Bill is before us, but we must go further than what is proposed. I believe that the Bill falls woefully short of providing adequate compensation for the victims.

The Bill contains a number of arbitrary decisions that I think are designed purely to appease the insurance industry. First and foremost among those is the cut-off date for diagnosis, 25 July 2012, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) mentioned. I have heard no credible argument for why it cannot be put back to 10 February 2010, when the original consultation started, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I understand that that would assist an additional 700 people. The argument must not just be about cost. However, it is my understanding that with that change, it would fit within the 3% levy if it was taken over the 10-year period.

Secondly, the Bill is very limited in terms of who it supports and helps. It is being spun as a victory for asbestos sufferers, but it is limited to covering just mesothelioma victims and it will not affect people who have come into contact with asbestos domestically. That is a cause for concern.

My final point is about the level of compensation. Frankly, 75% is insulting. We must remember that the Government were proposing a 70% limit. My opinion is that a fair level of compensation would be 100%, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East suggested. I am prepared to support an 80% level. That modest increase would at least give some comfort to the victims.

All those arbitrary decisions raise serious questions about the Bill. I get the impression that the Government are good at standing up for the strong insurance industry, but weak when it comes to standing up for the victims of asbestos.

I will finish by referring to the case of a lady called Mrs Nellie Kershaw. She started work as an asbestos spinner at the age of 12 in the Turner and Newall factory in Rochdale. In 1922, she became too sick to work and was diagnosed by a local doctor as suffering from asbestos poisoning. As it was an occupational illness, she was ineligible for sickness benefit from a local scheme to which she had contributed. Her husband, Frank, who was having to look after the couple’s two children, pleaded with her employers for assistance. They refused to offer any help and she died in poverty on 24 March 1924. To this day, she lies in an unmarked pauper’s grave in Rochdale cemetery. She was 33 years old when she passed away.

Nellie Kershaw was the first person in this country to be diagnosed with asbestosis. She and her family were left with absolutely nothing. Fast-forward 90 years and we are here today quibbling over who should and who should not receive compensation and over how much the compensation should be. As it stands, the Bill does the minimum possible to support asbestos victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to remind the House that we are introducing an important tax credit for the video games industry. Our negotiations with the European Commission are going very well and we are, I hope, still on target to introduce it next April.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to increase the effects of tourism on the economy.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Tourism is a key priority for the Government. That is why we are funding VisitBritain’s biggest ever global tourism initiative, the GREAT campaign, which is expected to create 4.6 million extra visitors, £2.3 billion additional spend and nearly 60,000 jobs over the next four years. In addition, a major domestic campaign by VisitEngland is expected to create 12,000 jobs over three years, with £500 million extra spent by tourists.

[Andrew Bingham]

Recent research has shown that tourism in Buxton in my constituency of High Peak generated a massive £72 million for the local economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates not only the huge financial and employment benefits of an effective tourism industry, but the fact that these benefits spread out to surrounding areas and all parts of the local economy, even those that would not necessarily be associated with tourism?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend should not be surprised at that level of tourism in his area, given the fantastic international festivals, the wonderful Georgian architecture of Buxton and the way that it has inspired so much creativity over the generations. All Members of the House should be looking at the way that tourism can help to support their own local economies because it has such potential for growth.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

For me, universal credit is important first of all because of the message it sends. It sends a very clear message that everyone of working age in this country is needed and has the potential to do really well in the workplace—that they are needed to help to build up our economy and put the “Great” back into Britain. Too often in the past there has been a tone of pessimism which accepts that it is okay for people just to sit at home all day on benefits and do no work. We can see that in the figures. This Government inherited a situation in which some 5 million people were on out-of-work benefits, and 2 million children were growing up in homes where no one worked. Furthermore, 1.4 million of those 5 million people had been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine of the last 10 years.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous benefit system acted as a disincentive to people to explore work possibilities and their own potential, and that the purpose of universal credit is to allow people to get back into work and develop their potential, and thereby to liberate them from the welfare state?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. That is, indeed, the kernel of what universal credit is about: it gives a clear message that it pays to work and it is good to work. The Opposition call themselves the Labour party, yet too often when in office they gave the impression of being the non-labour party. This coalition is on the side of the working person—those who are working in a job in order to earn money and bring cash back to their families, and thereby to lift their children out of poverty.

It was often said in past times that the best cure for deprivation is a job. Many people in my constituency live in deprivation. It is important to get people back into work, to incentivise and encourage people to be in work and to make work pay; that is an important message to send. That is why I see universal credit as a message of optimism saying that we want everyone to play their role, and that everyone is expected to play their role and to be active in the workplace.

I support universal credit because it is a simpler system. It makes the situation easier to understand. There are not five different types of payments; there is just one simple payment. It is a fairer system, too. Rather than people losing 90p in the pound—thereby entirely disincentivising them from working harder to get a pay rise or from working longer hours—only 65p in the pound will be withdrawn, which incentivises them to work harder and for longer, and to bring more prosperity back to their families.

Work Experience

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

My first work experience, which was paid, was washing dishes in a department store in Coventry. We have all had such jobs. The point that I am trying to make is that, in the case to which I referred, it was not the young woman’s first job experience. She was not someone who had never worked and needed to get from that situation to another. Of course most of us have experience of different types of temporary work.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The hon. Lady just said that the lady she was referring to was forced into work experience. It is a voluntary programme. Frankly, if the lady is doing work experience, it might involve another skill that she can learn, but it is voluntary; she cannot have been compelled to do it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I shall explain the issue as far as this young woman was concerned, and I think that this is where it comes down to conditionality. She was certainly put under, as she explained it, considerable pressure—as part of a general conditionality point—to do the work experience or her benefits would be put at risk. That was how she perceived it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

The situation might be even worse than that. At Treasury questions last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who is not here today, raised the case of two young people who had been given a job at the end of a work experience scheme, but who were paid off within two weeks, which is not particularly satisfactory. If we are not tracking outcomes properly, we should be. If we are to judge the validity of schemes, we need the data.

[Andrew Bingham]

Is the hon. Lady aware that 51% of the first 1,300 people who took part in the scheme were off benefits after 13 weeks?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is precisely what I said—that 51% of the first 1,300 people who took part in the scheme between January and March 2011 were off benefits. That was the point where I came in.

We have to look not only at the quality of work experience, but at the fact that some firms may simply be using schemes to get people to do jobs they would otherwise have employed someone to do.

On a slightly different matter—this does not relate to the work experience scheme pure and simple—I was astonished to read in no less a paper than The Sunday Times, which is hardly a friend of the left, that McDonald’s had, it seemed to me, reframed its trainee posts as apprenticeships. It was taking Government money to train people in the skills they would need if they got a job at McDonald’s, such as customer service and food hygiene. Many people, including students and others, have gone through the McDonald’s scheme over many years and they have gone on to work in McDonald’s. However, people on the scheme are now being designated as apprentices, and I know of one case in which somebody doing a Saturday job got a contract as an apprentice. McDonald’s got the money from the Government and was quoted as saying that no additional jobs had been created.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

9. What assistance his Department has provided to vulnerable people to protect them from cold weather.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

This winter, we have made more than 5 million cold weather payments at a cost of more than £129 million and over 12 million winter fuel payments at a cost of over £2 billion.

[Andrew Bingham]

I would like to make a plea on behalf of the pensioners in my High Peak constituency, which, as the Minister’s colleagues on the Front Bench will know from previous visits, is one of the coldest in the country. Will the Minister concede that winters in High Peak are cold, bringing increased heating costs for all our residents, but more particularly for old-age pensioners?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I have not visited his constituency, I suspect there is a clue in the name. He will be pleased to know that three weather stations are linked to his constituency—Bingley, Woodford and Leek—and each has been triggered twice this winter, so low-income pensioners and disabled people will all have received £50 this winter to help them with their fuel bills.

Pensions and Social Security

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

It is not clear what the degree of certainty is. As I have said, the triple lock was overridden last year because it would have given such a low rate of uprating. This year, it has been applied because there is not much difference between RPI and the triple lock. So no, I do not think that any kind of rock-solid certainty has been introduced; the triple lock was waived the first time it was supposed to be put in place.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about certainty, but will he acknowledge that the triple lock will give pensioners the certainty that they will no longer get the derisory 75p they got when his party was in government?

[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.

Housing Benefit

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a limited amount of time and will lose some if I give way.

The speed of the changes raises real issues. Even if I believed that rents would adjust as the Secretary of State believes, they would not do so at the lightning speed required by his policies. People will not suddenly find their landlords voluntarily reducing their rents by £12, £13 or £14 a week. That will not happen for a number of reasons.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Lloyd]

No, I am sorry.

The first of those reasons is that there is no evidence that rents adjust at that speed. The second and more important reason is that in a city such as Manchester—a complicated city which is quite different from the London housing market, with different types of housing tenure and different types of housing cheek by jowl—the housing benefit system is not the primary driver of rental levels. Those are driven by other factors. If that thesis is right, the Secretary of State’s proposals are doomed not to succeed. If they do not succeed, rent levels will not adjust downwards and people will inevitably lose money. Even if rent levels were to adjust, they would not do that overnight. That is why, partly as a plea and partly as a demand on behalf of my constituents, I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about the speed with which the changes are implemented.

The Secretary of State’s argument about jobseeker’s allowance was rather confusing. He seemed to imply that no one would really lose 10% of JSA because nobody would find themselves in that position. Even in the relatively high employment times under the Labour Government, my constituency still had serious pockets of unemployment because it is one of those constituencies that are the repository of the longer-term unemployed. In those circumstances, it is fanciful to suggest that no one on JSA will be unemployed for more than 12 months and fanciful to say that nobody will be hit by that 10% penalty.

Ten per cent. of JSA is a huge amount of money for somebody in that situation to lose. I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at this issue, because, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said on many occasions, those whom we regard as blameless—those who have conformed to everything that the Government and society have asked of them, sought work and gone out of their way to upskill and everything else—simply should not be penalised in the way that the Government propose. I hope that the Secretary of State, almost mirroring what he said—if he believes it—will say that if all the other changes that he proposes to benefits are to be effective, he will withdraw the 10% cut. To follow his direction of travel, it is an unnecessary 10% cut, and it simply should not exist.

People in my constituency who are in work, looking for work or disabled are going to lose out under the proposals. When Manchester city council considered the measures, it discovered that the people most likely to be hurt were single parents and those seeking work. They are simply not the people whom we should penalise. If Government Members’ ambition is to penalise, they should support their Government and these proposals. If their real intention is to reform the system, they should say to their Secretary of State, “Please think again.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I am a firm believer—I always have been—that people should be rewarded for hard work. I am also a firm believer that we need housing and other benefits, but that they should be there as safety nets. The willingness of the Labour Government to pay more than £100,000 a year to someone on benefits is not, to me, a safety net. It has to be said that £100,000 is an enormous amount of money, which is sufficient to fund a lifestyle beyond the budget of many hard-working families in my constituency of High Peak. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that has to be wrong; it cannot be right.

Labour Members claim that this is fair. Do they think it fair that, under current arrangements, someone paying rent below the local housing allowance level will be able to receive the local housing allowance and keep the change? People can make a profit on housing benefit. Does that seem fair? Is that fair to someone working hard to pay their way? Labour Members look askance, but it is true.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bingham]

Briefly, yes.

[Glenda Jackson]

In my constituency, private landlords are increasingly reluctant to accept tenants who can pay only through housing benefit. For an increasing number of people, there is a shortfall between what the local rent office deems a property to be worth and what the landlord actually charges. Not one single claimant of housing benefit in my constituency—and they number thousands—has money to take home from the local housing allowance. In many instances, they have to make up the shortfall themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham]

That may be the case in the hon. Lady’s constituency, but there are examples where people are keeping the money as change. I will pay slight tribute to Labour Members, as they were going to stop that in April next year. Fair do’s there. However, that needs to be compared with what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) said, as he spoke about taking money away. I gather that £15 of weekly excess was taken away last year. How do they square that one?

The £20,000 to £21,000 cap on housing benefit is fair. Some people have claimed that that amount is too much, but I think it is about right. I also think that setting the local housing allowance at the 30th percentile point is fair. It means that people on housing benefit can afford three out of 10 rental properties.

From experience, however, I would like to sound a small note of caution about broad market rental areas. The determination and review of BMRAs must be done with great care. The Rent Service looked at the BMRA in my constituency. Glossop was covered as well, but because of the determination and conditions, there was a detrimental impact on some residents in my constituency. This issue was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald), and it is a slight concern of mine. One thing that came out of the Rent Service review was the Heffernan case, which went to the House of Lords—some Members may be aware of it, some not. It caused a long delay—hence my note of caution.

The increase in the discretionary housing allowance has not been much mentioned. It is increasing by £10 million next year, £40 million a year from 2012 to 2015, and £60 million a year from 2013-14. This is a huge amount. The DHA was used to deal with the difficulties of the BMRA in High Peak a couple of years ago.

The reform of housing benefit is long overdue. At present, we spend more on it than on the Army and Navy combined. It is right to offer people support when they need it, and it is right that the extra money is available through the discretionary housing allowance.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Andrew Bingham]

I will not give way, as I have nearly finished and many others are waiting to speak. [Interruption.] I can talk as long as anyone wants, but I am conscious that some Members have been in their places a long time and are waiting to speak.

It is wrong that hard-working families in my constituency and others who are living within tight budgets—

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Andrew Bingham]

Oh, go on. I will let the right hon. Lady have a go.

[Caroline Flint]

The hon. Gentleman welcomes the announcement of a rise in the amount provided for the discretionary housing allowance. How would he feel if those payments were paid to the landlords of the very occupiers of homes that the coalition Government have demonised by letting them stay in houses that cost so much money? What does he feel about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham]

Excuse me, but I do not like the word “demonised” any more than I like “punished” or “cleansing”. I do not like the language used by Opposition Members.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Bingham]

Yes, for the last time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the increase in the housing benefit budget from £14 billion to £20 billion in the past five years is a sign of the success or the failure of the last Government’s policies?

[Andrew Bingham]

I think that “abject failure” is probably a better phrase.

I end by saying that it is wrong for families who work hard to see families on benefit living in houses that are beyond their wildest dreams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

My hon. Friend is wishing for the moon. Government Members are not interested in facts; they discount absolutely everything that emanates from this side of the House.

[Andrew Bingham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Glenda Jackson]

No.

Government Members also discount the briefings that we have all received, from organisations such as Shelter, Crisis, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Citizens Advice and the National Housing Federation, about the real danger and damage that these ill-thought-out plans are going to inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

We have been here before. We have seen all this before. An earlier submission by Crisis pointed out that it will cost £60 a day for a room in a bed and breakfast. Let us look back to the earlier history of bed and breakfasts. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to the history of 1945; I was somewhat surprised that he did not take us back to the much more recent history of what happened to people in this country under the first Thatcherite regime. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about children then—