Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers, drawing upon the expertise of the Work and Pensions Select Committee; requests that this impact assessment examine care home admissions, access to day care centres, access to education for people with learning difficulties, provision of universal mental health treatments, closures of Remploy factories, the Government’s contract with Atos Healthcare, IT implementation of universal credit, human rights abuses against disabled people, excess deaths of welfare claimants and the disregard of medical evidence in decision-making by Atos, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Tribunals Service; urges the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education jointly to launch a consultation on improving support into work for sick and disabled people; and further calls on the Government to end with immediate effect the work capability assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association, to discontinue forced work under the threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits and to bring forward legislative proposals to allow a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

We are making history today. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that people with disabilities have secured a debate in the Chamber on an agenda of their choosing, so let us pay tribute to the War on Welfare campaigners. They initiated the campaign, drafted the petition that we have before us in the form of a motion, and worked hard for a year to gather more than 100,000 signatures in order to secure this debate. They are heroes and heroines who worked, many of them despite their disability, to ensure that this campaign was a success.

MPs may speak in this debate, but it is the voice of the WOW campaigners and petitioners that will be heard. What do the WOW campaigners want from this debate? They have said that they want a serious debate. They want MPs, party spokespeople and Ministers to listen, and to listen well to the statements that they have made. What do they want us to say? I have asked WOW petitioners what they want me and other MPs to say in today’s debate. They said, “We want you to get across as best you can what the welfare changes brought in over the last four years have meant to us and our families—the stark reality.” Why do they want that? Perhaps naively, they believe that if MPs and Ministers really knew what it is like, what disabled people are going through, they would not stand by and let fellow human beings suffer and be degraded in this way.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Ahead of the debate, the Brighton Housing Trust sent me some alarming data of 25 cases it had looked at concerning claimants of employment and support allowance. All of them won their appeal and had the decision overturned. In 72% of cases the decisions were overturned on the basis of a mental health condition, and 32% of that sample group stated that the process had caused an increase in suicidal intention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the implications of the policy are literally a matter of life and death?

[John McDonnell]

I agree completely. The figures in Brighton are echoed around the country and have been reported for a number of years.

We met some of the disabled campaigners this morning. One of them said, referring to Ministers, “Do they realise that many of us feel terrorised by what the Government are doing?” Another disabled campaigner said to me this morning, “Can you tell them that they call their programme fulfilling our potential, but we feel that many of us simply won’t survive this round of cuts? A generation is going to be lost.” The central demand of the petition is straightforward: the motion is, in essence, a call for a cumulative impact assessment of all the welfare changes that have been introduced by this Government. The argument that campaigners put forward is that if politicians and society only knew the full effect of all the changes on the lives of disabled people and their families, surely they would not let that happen in a civilised society. Let us see whether we can move hearts and change minds in this debate.

Let us run through some of the figures. There are 11.3 million people with a disability in the UK, 4.5 million of whom have a significant disability that entitles them to a disability benefit such as the disability living allowance or the attendance allowance. The group the welfare cuts are hurting the most is the 2.7 million people with disabilities who live in poverty.

I remember the Prime Minister’s statements in 2010 when the Government launched their austerity programme to cut public spending. In October 2010, he said that

“it is fair that those with broader shoulders should bear a greater load”,

that the greatest burden would be placed on the better off, and that the cuts would be fair. Well, the reverse is the case.

I urge Members to read at least one of the relevant reports. In “Counting the Cuts”, Simon Duffy, the director of the Centre for Welfare Reform, explains that disabled people in poverty are bearing the cuts four times worse than the average, while the burden on people using social care is nearly six times that on the average person. Other reports escalate the figure and say that the burden on people with disabilities is perhaps 20 times the average. The reason for that is that disabled people are being hit by a combination of cuts in funding for social care and support and by wave after wave of cuts—almost annually—in welfare benefits.

Let us look at the cuts in care and support. Many disabled people rely on local authority social care and support. By next month, £2.68 billion will have been cut out of adult social care budgets across the country. In 2012-13, 320,000 fewer disabled people and 37,000 fewer adults aged between 18 and 64 with physical impairments received local authority care and support than in 2005-06. The number of adults with mental health issues receiving care and support has reduced by 30,000.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I too, pay tribute to the WOW campaigners not only for securing more than 100,000 signatures to the petition, but for securing today’s debate. If anything could be said to illustrate the effectiveness of social media in opening up the lives of disabled people and allowing them to connect with other people throughout the country, it is an event such as this, inspired by the ability to connect with others who may be experiencing similar trials and tribulations—in this instance, at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Government say that they are not picking on disabled people and those with severe health problems. Let us look at the evidence. The main benefits that are paid to people with disabilities and health problems are ESA, benefits paid following work capability assessments, and the new personal independence payment which will replace the disability living allowance. Every one of those benefits is currently undergoing enormous changes and reforms, initiated by the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

We know that those reforms are not going well. Only this week, we learnt that the work capability reassessments had been suspended, and that Atos, the company delivering them, wants to end its contract. We are hearing rumours that a face-to-face work capability assessment in the home is taking up to six months to arrange. We know that those who are lucky enough to receive ESA, if they are in the work-related activity group and claiming the contributory element, will receive the benefit for only a year.

Also, as has been mentioned, the people who are in the contributory ESA group are the ones who have worked all their lives—who have paid their national insurance and who thought they were paying into an insurance scheme that would look after them if the worst came to the worst and they were not able to work any more. Interestingly therefore, it is not just those who come from the poorest backgrounds, and whose whole families have perhaps depended on benefits, who are suffering under this Government—although that group most definitely is—but it is also people who thought they had done the right thing. It is people who have done what previous Governments asked and have worked and contributed and have done as well as they could.

The National Audit Office report published today shows that the roll-out of PIP seems to be in chaos as well. There are huge backlogs, and there are constituents of mine who have been waiting for over six months to get a determination after they have had their face-to-face interview.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. These delays in PIP payments in particular are causing so much stress. Does she share my horror that, for example, in Brighton some front-line services have been doing their own surveys of how long people have been waiting, and the advice centre in Brighton and Hove found that only three of 60 clients—fewer than 5%—have actually been assessed? Does she agree that that causes massive uncertainty and stress?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Yes, and it is particularly difficult for people who have quite progressive diseases. For those with terminal illnesses, there is an attempt to get payments out quite quickly, but even then it takes longer than normal. I have a constituent who has very aggressive multiple sclerosis who is desperate for this help but who cannot get it because he does not fall under the special measures category.

The benefits I have mentioned are those that everybody knows are specifically for disabled people and people with health problems, but there are other benefits, too, and other changes to benefits that fall disproportionately on that group. Which single group is hardest hit by the changes to housing benefit and local housing allowance? It is disabled people and those with health problems. Which single group is hardest hit by the bedroom tax? Surprise, surprise, it is disabled people and those with health problems. Which group is hardest hit by the removal of the full council tax relief? Again, it is disabled people and people with health problems. That is because all these changes fall on people of working age, and the people of working age who are most likely to be on these benefits are people who cannot work because of a disability or a health problem.

Who is the hardest hit by the overall benefits cap? The Government said it would not be disabled people, and it probably is not them, but it is their carers, particularly if they are family carers. Who is hardest hit by the social care cuts that mean that local authorities are not able to provide the social care that people need? Of course, it is disabled people and those with health problems. If universal credit ever comes in, severe disablement premium goes, which was paid to people who are single and living alone.

Because it is not just the obvious benefits that go to disabled people that are being cut or are in chaos or not working, but all these other benefits and changes that are also affecting people who have a disability and their families, there is an absolute need for a cumulative impact assessment. I have been calling for a cumulative impact assessment for a number of years now and that is because no one knows precisely the full force of everything that may be falling on individual families and individual households. Unless we do that cumulative impact assessment, we will never know, and in the meantime those families and households are struggling to make ends meet, falling into debt and having to make the choice between eating and heating. They are having to make choices we should not have to make in 21st century Britain. That is why I am very happy to support this debate this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this important debate. I also pay a huge tribute to the petition proposers and supporters, and all the people who are watching this debate, either in person or on Twitter. They will have noticed that the number of Members on the Government Benches has gone up to three—it was two until a few moments ago. Sadly, that reflects the priority that Government Members give to this issue. I pay tribute in particular to Francesca Martinez, who has done so much to bring forward the petition that we are discussing this afternoon.

I will focus on the work capability assessment, which was introduced by the last Administration in 2008 and has so very clearly failed people in need. The British Medical Association’s GP committee voted unanimously in 2012 that, after four years, the policy had been a failure. It was clear when it was introduced that it was part of an attempt to appear to be hard on benefits and to be clamping down. It happened at the same time as things were being made harder for lone parents, with more and more conditions being piled on. It is part of the rhetoric about the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor that, sadly, we still hear today.

I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the clarification, but, to be honest, it does not make much difference. In my view, benefits should be payable on the basis of need, not on the basis of an arbitrary cap. It is on precisely that point that the official Opposition and I part company. It will be deeply disappointing if the official Opposition abstain on this motion. There is a lot of sound and fury from Labour Members, but that must be followed through in a vote. I cannot understand why the official Opposition would not vote for this motion.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending, but I am not sure that most people would. We can argue about the precise language, but the official Opposition will demonstrate later this afternoon that they are sitting on their hands. That is a great shame.

Let me make some progress, because the purpose of my speech is not primarily to attack the official Opposition, but to attack the Government. This afternoon, the Government have witnessed hon. Members giving case after case from their own experiences of the impact of the welfare reforms that the Government have introduced. I will talk about what the figures mean for Brighton and Hove, and tell the House about the local advice agencies in Brighton and Hove that came together to produce a powerful report on their experiences of working with ill people and people with disabilities. Those agencies include the local citizens advice bureau, Advice Brighton and Hove, Age UK and the Federation of Disabled People.

To illustrate the reality behind the figures, I will talk about two local case studies from Macmillan that were included in the report. It mentions Mr C, a 56-year-old single man who, following cancer of the spine, lost his mobility and became confined to a wheelchair. Mr C was forced to stop work owing to ill health and constant pain. Macmillan made contact to start the PIP application process last September. To my knowledge, it is still not resolved. At the same time, an application was made for ESA. That application followed a similar path to the PIP application. Mr C is still being paid the assessment phase rate of just £71.70 a week, with no information from Atos as to when it will assess him further. Four months on, we are still counting and he is still waiting.

Macmillan also relayed the story of Mr J, a 32-year-old who is suffering from advanced bowel cancer and who came to the charity for help. It took more than 10 weeks for him to be assessed. His wife was acting as his full-time carer because he was so ill. She was also looking after their baby and young child. The report states:

“Throughout this process both Mr and Mrs J were very anxious and suffering serious financial hardship. Mr J at this time was seriously ill, vomiting day and night plus major issues re fatigue due to chemotherapy etc. Both also felt throughout the period that they were not believed and had been labelled scroungers and benefit cheats by the DWP.”

The work by Advice Brighton and Hove makes it clear that people who are applying for PIP—some of the most vulnerable people—are being left without adequate finances. That is having a massive impact on their physical and emotional well-being. The cases in the report are dreadful, but they are no longer surprising. I have multiple examples of sick and disabled constituents who have been awarded no points, but have then been assessed for benefits under the Government’s regime.

The DLA regime is being tightened, even for disabled children such as my five-year-old constituent who has cystic fibrosis and needs constant 24-hour care to prevent her from falling and being a danger to herself and others. Her DLA has been cut from the higher to the lower rate. Just before Christmas, her parents asked for that to be reconsidered, but it still has not happened. As well as the loss of essential financial support, the family have lost their eligibility for things such as the blue badge.

Another of my constituents has, at last, got a date for a medical assessment in March, after submitting her application in August last year. In the meantime, funding for her electric wheelchair has been stopped. She managed to get funding for three months through the council’s discretionary fund, so she has not lost it yet, but she is extremely worried about what will happen if her claim is not processed in time.

I hope that the House will forgive me for taking up a little more time, but I want to give the example of a constituent who suffers from severe mental ill health. After months of delays, which caused her extreme anxiety, and with support workers very concerned about her suicidal state, an application for benefits that was submitted in August last year has only recently been resolved. She has rightly been placed in the support group, which means that the DWP recognises that she is definitely unable to work. Despite that, she was put through months of unnecessary anxiety.

Many people feel that the system is extremely counter-productive, in the sense that it makes people who are already ill much more ill. We hear example after example of that. I hope that the Government will not ignore them. If advice agencies are getting together to assess these problems, it must be about time that the Government looked at the impact of their own policies.

The conclusion of the report by my local advice agencies is that people are going through what they call “awful experiences” while waiting for their claims to be processed. Advisers are spending disproportionate amounts of time making calls to the DWP and the privatised PIP providers. That is frustrating and is a drain on resources. Claims that need to be followed up are taking more than double the amount of time that is usually allocated to such work. The advice sector in Brighton and Hove has made it very clear that the situation is untenable. It is looking to the Government to sort it out. In the meantime, it is asking for local contacts within the DWP and Atos so that organisations do not have to keep wasting huge amounts of time contacting DWP and Atos nationally. I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific request. It is quite a small one, but it would make a huge amount of difference to the time that is spent following up claims.

Finally, other hon. Members have given the shocking figures on the number of people who are dying while appealing against a decision that they are fit to work. Not every death will be related to fitness for work or to the stress of an unfair or wrong assessment. If a link could be proven, there would be a case for corporate manslaughter. However, Ministers cannot ignore the strong likelihood that significant numbers of people are being assessed as fit for work by the Government when, in reality, they are very close to death. That has to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

No I will not.

The Minister has, of course, been commendably frank about his plans to replace Atos with other providers—that was called for initially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—but we need root-and-branch re-purposing and reform of the work capability assessment, as well as improvements in the process. Those improvements should include systemising the collection of evidence in all cases, including evidence from GPs and other clinicians, providing suitable, accessible settings for assessments, and ensuring that recordings of interviews are always available to claimants.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

Not at the moment.

I do not apologise for our intentions when we introduced the ESA and an assessment of people’s capacity for work. We wanted that to be a supportive and facilitative process, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) pointed out, the renegotiation of the Atos contract by the current Government has rebalanced the system to be punitive, not facilitative. The Minister’s plan to replace Atos with other providers goes nowhere near to meeting the need for wholesale reform.

However, I do part company with the motion in its call for the WCA to be scrapped. I know that will disappoint many disabled campaigners listening to the debate. In my view, the assessment should be the first step in a process of identifying and assembling the right support, including financial support. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that I have never thought there should be no assessment or reassessment, and I do not think it now. Justified criticisms were made of people being left for years on incapacity benefit without any support or any check on their progress or the deterioration of their condition, and we should not go back to that. Yet just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)—who has had to leave the debate to attend a Bill Committee—pointed out, we learned that Ministers are going to leave people on ESA in exactly that position for the next two years without reassessment, and apparently planned to keep both claimants and MPs in the dark about it. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify exactly the background to that extraordinary decision today.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think people with disabilities will be disappointed to hear what the hon. Lady says, because the current work capability assessment has become so tainted by being linked to a Government who are very clearly trying to reduce the amount of money they give out that if a new Labour Government wanted to redesign the assessment, which would still obviously need to assess whether or not people are eligible, they should call it something else. By sticking to the name “work capability assessment” and not being able to support the motion, the hon. Lady is doing people with disabilities a disservice.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady largely made a very helpful contribution, but there is an important point about the legitimacy of the assessment process—a legitimacy that disabled people will themselves recognise confers on them the entitlement to the benefits they receive. It is very important that we do nothing to undermine the public’s perception of entitlement.

Meanwhile, as we can see from today’s National Audit Office report, the roll-out of PIP is also in trouble. Terminally ill patients and disabled people have to wait weeks, if not months, for a decision, leaving them stranded financially, and anxious and uncertain about their claim. Why on earth Ministers awarded a PIP contract to Atos, given its failure to manage the WCA contract properly, is simply beyond my understanding. What on earth were they thinking of?

The replacement of the DLA with PIP also comes with a 20% budget cut, leaving disabled people and their carers facing the loss of vital financial support. Some will lose their Motability vehicles, and some will fall out of work as a result. The Disability Benefits Consortium has suggested that if 50,000 people leave work as a result of losing the mobility payment, that could cost the Exchequer £464 million in lost taxes and national insurance and in additional benefits.

It is not just about cuts to benefits specifically for disabled people either, because other benefit cuts affect them disproportionately too: the bedroom tax; the introduction of the benefit cap, which will also significantly impact on carers, many of whom cannot take paid work to escape it; the localisation of council tax support; the removal of funding for local assistance schemes; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, the decision to uprate benefits by CPI, which impacts particularly harshly on disabled people, who face substantial additional living costs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, in times of austerity it is disabled people who are bearing a disproportionate burden, and the Government’s responsibility is to work hand in hand with them to protect and strengthen their independence, their dignity, their choices and their right to live free from stigma, hardship and fear. As a first step to doing that, it is high time that Ministers undertook a proper cumulative impact assessment of the effect of their policies, took action and faced up to their devastating effects.

Housing Benefit

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to be able to speak relatively soon after the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), because there was a sense of breathlessness when we were listening to the complacency and, frankly, arrogance of her comments about the kinds of people I see in my surgeries day in, day out. Those people are suffering partly because there is not enough affordable housing. Nobody is saying that there is enough affordable housing, and all Governments in recent years should have done a lot more. However, the idea that pushing people out of their homes into properties that do not exist is in any way helpful, either in economic terms or for the housing crisis, is deeply misguided.

At the start of this month I tabled early-day motion 1057 to pray against the statutory instrument that we are opposing in today’s debate. When the Leader of the Opposition came and asked whether he could put his name at the top of the prayer to push the debate forward, I was of course happy to agree. I welcome his support and the continued strong opposition to the bedroom tax from colleagues across the smaller parties and, indeed, some senior Liberal Democrats. Many Members of the House are joined in opposition to the Government’s bedroom tax and their attempt to undo a drafting mistake they made when they pushed through this nasty legislation. We know that the legislation is cruel and counter-productive.

As others have said, the Government’s drafting mistake means that some people are exempt from the charge and should not be made to pay it, but now the Government want to ensure that from March all those people will finally be trapped by the bedroom tax. I hope that Ministers will listen today, because it is not just rhetoric. The strong cross-party opposition to the policy comes from our listening to the people we see in our surgeries. We are not talking about a “spare room subsidy”, or about the taxpayer subsidising the unnecessary luxury of an extra room. In case after case, we see that the rooms are not spare, but essential. As we have heard many times, DWP statistics show that more than two thirds of those affected are likely to be people with disabilities. The tax is pushing disabled people from adapted properties. It is sending people to alien places, away from the support networks they have relied on all their lives.

The effect of the policy is to turf out the person with severe mental health problems who has been settled for years and is deeply distressed by change, but who perhaps has a tiny box room in their home. They cannot take a lodger because of their unpredictable episodes and they cannot afford the rent because the box room means that their rent has gone up, yet there is no smaller property available locally. I asked Ministers a year ago what was supposed to happen to those people. They did not answer then and they are not answering now.

This is a policy that springs from a reactionary, anti-benefits narrative that takes no account of people’s real circumstances. In Brighton and Hove, the minority Green administration is doing everything it can with the tiny amount of money given to it to protect people from this Government’s pernicious policy but, as predicted, people are massively struggling. Without even counting housing association tenants, there are 286 council tenants newly in arrears because of the bedroom tax, 199 of whom have a disability.

As well as being callous and cruel, the bedroom tax is counter-productive. There are simply insufficient smaller properties for people to move to, as the Government have repeatedly been told. People are faced with poverty and debt or with moving into the expensive clutches of the private rented sector, where their housing benefit bills will be even higher. Pushing people from their homes is not saving money and it is not solving the housing crisis either.

The bottom line is that we have nowhere near enough affordable homes—I would certainly agree with the Government about that. Successive Governments have caused the housing crisis, not the poor people who are now struggling to cope with it. It is not the fault of people who cannot get a job, or of disabled people or people who need overnight care. The crucial problem—this is where the fault lies—is the epic failure of both this coalition and the previous new Labour Administration to build sufficient council housing. The Tories pushed the decimation of the stock with the right to buy, ignoring the right to rent; new Labour tweaked the enormous discounts but did not grasp the nettle and build council housing. In 2007-08, for example, only 350 new council homes were built across the country. However, it is deeply unjust to penalise people who are struggling at the bottom of a deeply distorted housing market, over which they have little or no control, for the omissions of previous Governments.

What do the Government say? Lord Freud called the exemption that we are trying to preserve today an “anomaly” and says that the number of people affected is “small”. That detached language shows how out of touch the Government are. We have heard already from the Opposition Front Bench that the figures are vastly higher than that—at least 20,000 and probably much more, because that figure is based on only council returns so far. What precisely will Ministers do to rectify the injustice done to individuals who have been denied their full benefit entitlement? What about the people who, as a result of the error, have newly fallen into rent arrears, which have negatively affected their credit rating, for example? What about those who have left their homes in response to the tax and given up their security of tenure, when they did not have to pay the tax in the first place? How will they be compensated? The mess made by this mistake is surely yet another reason to scrap this contemptible tax entirely.

In conclusion, the tax comes from an aloof Government, some of whose members are detached from reality, who simply do not know what is going on and moreover do not care. I hope the regulations are stopped today, because any hon. Member who walks through the Lobby to extend the reach of the bedroom tax will be harming even more people with disabilities, with even more people pushed into debt, forcing more people away from their communities. The only way to clean up this mess is to scrap the entire bedroom tax once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for all that she has done to bring this issue to public attention.

The loophole in the regulations that we are discussing exposes just how poorly thought through the bedroom tax legislation has been from the start, and affords us a timely opportunity to take stock of how the legislation has been working in practice since its introduction last year. Today’s debate has revealed that the policy was, from the start, nothing more than a cash grab from those on the lowest incomes who were already living in the cheapest houses.

In Scotland, 80% of the homes affected by the bedroom tax are the homes of people with recognised disabilities, who already have the least choice about where and how they live. There is a broad political consensus in Scotland that the tax is proving to be unworkable, and that it is only harming disadvantaged tenants but damaging councils and local housing associations, undermining social cohesion in our communities, and harming the social fabric as a whole. Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 this area of policy is reserved to Westminster, so we have been stuck with Ministers whom we did not elect, imposing a policy for which we did not vote. Nevertheless, Scottish local authorities, the Scottish Government, and our housing associations and advice bureaux have had to mop up the mess over the last 10 months.

There is now clear evidence that the bedroom tax is costing taxpayers more than it is saving. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has analysed the cost of implementing the policy in relation to its projected savings, and concluded that a policy that was supposed to save about £50 million a year in Scotland is actually costing about £60 million a year to implement. Detailed research undertaken by COSLA with six councils also revealed disturbing trends in the patterns of arrears accruing in the social rented sector. In the first six months of the policy, an additional 31% of tenants affected by the tax were in rent arrears, and many of them had never been in debt before. Squeezing the bedroom tax from people on very low incomes who just cannot afford it is causing huge distress and worry to tenants, including those who are managing to pay, but it also has serious implications for social landlords and for the solvency of housing associations in particular.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case but does she agree that this is about a lack of affordable housing and, until we address that, the things that we are talking about will not get solved?

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree that the lack of affordable housing is a core issue, but there is also a chronic mismatch between the needs of prospective social tenants and the available housing stock. I have made the point many times in the House that, across Scotland, over 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom property, yet only 23% of the housing stock is one-bedroom size. Even if everyone were to be allocated a home of the requisite size, there are just not enough smaller houses to go around.

There has been a lot of talk today about the shortage of housing. The Scottish Government have managed to deliver more social housing than any other Administration in the UK, even on a fixed budget—a diminishing budget. It is a matter of political priority. If we understand there is a housing shortage, we need to fix it. There is no excuse.

Local authorities, housing associations and the Scottish Government have all had to take action to minimise the unwanted side effects of the bedroom tax, not least by topping up the budgets for discretionary housing payments by £20 million in the last year, which is the maximum amount allowed under section 70 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, and by this year making available £35 million for discretionary housing payments, which would, in effect, enable councils to mitigate the entire impact of the bedroom tax for everyone affected. However, as I have said, this remains a reserved matter, and the Scottish Government have had to request permission from UK Ministers to increase the DHP budget. As far as I am aware, the Deputy First Minister is still awaiting a reply to her letter of January to Lord Freud making that request, so can I press Ministers today to listen to the Scottish Parliament’s view on this matter—a view supported by four parties, including their own coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats—and impress upon their ministerial colleague in the other place to crack on and signal his consent? Frankly, it is a travesty in the 21st century that a democratically elected Parliament has to ask permission from an unelected peer to spend its own people’s money. I hope that that is one anachronism that we can put right this September.

The money we are having to find to do that in Scotland must be found from budgets for other devolved policy areas, but given the substantial knock-on costs the policy is having for devolved institutions and housing associations, the democratic consensus around the issue and the distress it is causing to disadvantaged people, I do not think standing aside is an option. Although today we are debating a technicality, it is a technicality that exposes deeper flaws in the housing benefit legislation and exposes the warped values and misconceptions that have informed it.

From the start, the bedroom tax was unfair and ill conceived. Now, nearly a year on, it is not only failing to meet its own policy objectives, but creating needless bureaucracy and displacing large costs on to other parts of the public sector. A policy that costs the public purse more than it saves is a bad policy. A policy that harms our most disadvantaged citizens is a bad policy. A policy with big technical loopholes is a bad policy. I urge the Government to do the right thing and abandon the policy today.

Housing Benefit

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is the same callous disregard that has been shown to over 400,000 disabled people in all our constituencies across the country. It is incredibly disappointing that the Secretary of State is not here to hear those stories today.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In Brighton and Hove there are now 300 council tenants in arrears who were not in arrears before the bedroom tax was introduced, and 205 of them have disabilities. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a despicable policy brought in by a Government who simply do not care and that it is having a disproportionate effect on people with disabilities?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is the story we are hearing in all our constituencies from people who are being hit by this policy and have nowhere to turn. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State does not want to answer for the waste and chaos in his Department, his failure to deliver the great welfare reform he promised, his failure to get more people into work and his failure to get the benefits bill down? He does not want to answer to this House, or to the British people, for the distress and damage he is causing, with desperate measures designed not to control costs or build a fairer system, but merely to distract from his own incompetence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of social housing. When my parents got their first council house, they thought that that was their home for life. That is not the same for people who rent in the private sector as a stepping stone to buying a house. My parents never had that expectation, and anyone who has lived in a council house would understand that.

The bedroom tax hits the most vulnerable, many of whom do not qualify, despite everything that has been said, for discretionary housing payments. In Aberdeen, I have been hearing the stories of people who have fallen on hard times and become victims of drug or alcohol abuse. They are now trying to get their lives back together but cannot, because they are being hit by the bedroom tax. For example, a 37-year-old merchant seaman sustained injuries in a car accident, and he therefore needed a ground-floor flat. He was allocated a two-bedroom flat because that was all there was, and he has now been hit by the bedroom tax. A 47-year-old disabled man, who, after his parents died, continued to live in the two-bedroom flat that he had been born in, has been hit by the bedroom tax.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she share my concern about the scale of debt being created by the Government’s brutal policy? Freedom of information figures show that one in three council house tenants are being pushed into rent arrears. Given that not enough smaller properties exist, how is that possibly fair or progressive?

[Dame Anne Begg]

And in many of my examples, people’s situations have been made worse, because they now have housing debts, so they cannot be re-housed and have to return to the very hostels that they thought they were escaping from.

Also hit by the bedroom tax is a 52-year-old woman who suffers from depression and chronic anxiety and who depends on her neighbour and so cannot contemplate a move. I know of many more examples. Some people would move but cannot, because suitable properties are not available, while others cannot move because they would lose the support that they depend on to lead independent lives.

Even if the Government do not accept Labour’s proposal to scrap the tax—I always live in hope—they must extend the exemptions. I shall propose just two very modest ones that they should accept, if only because, given how they have been shouting this afternoon, their Back Benchers obviously think these things are exempted already. The first exemption should apply to homes specifically adapted for disabled families, about which I really do not accept the Minister’s argument: this is a man who thinks that he will change the whole pensions system in Great Britain, yet he is not clever enough to come up with a definition of an adapted home. I don’t think so! The second exemption is for situations where it is unreasonable to expect a couple to share a bed or room because one or both have a disability.

On the first exemption, it is incredibly difficult and expensive for someone who needs adaptations to their house to move. Council tax regulations recognise that people who need extra room because of a disability pay council tax on a lower band, so it is ridiculous that this space requirement is not recognised in housing benefit regulations. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to find suitable housing and how long adaptations take to make, and this is an exemption that the Government could easily include.

On the second exemption, whoever in government thought it acceptable to expect a couple, one of whom is disabled, to share a bedroom clearly has no idea of the size of the average council house bedroom. It is certainly not big enough for a hospital bed, possibly some lifting equipment and a second bed for the other person, and such an arrangement would not give a good night’s sleep to someone who might also have an important caring role. Discretionary housing payment is not a solution. It is meant to be transitional—to get people from where they are now to where the Government want them to be —whereas the situations that I am describing are permanent.

I could talk about disabled children, but those two situations should certainly be exempted, and those people should not have to apply year on year either. No matter how much money is made available, it is wrong that they must apply for a discretionary payment, and the word “discretionary” is the key, because it means that they will not necessarily get the money. If Ministers do not accept the need to get rid of this measure, at least they could extend the exemptions; these modest measures would not cost more either, if what the Government say is right, because these people are already getting discretionary housing payments. The exemptions would alleviate a great deal of anxiety and make this appalling measure a bit more bearable for some of our constituents. But I stand by my original comment: it is time that this measure was abolished.

Pensions Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

I do not have any problem with the spirit of the new clause and amendments, but we are trying to consider this issue across Government. One of the funny things about being the pensions Minister is that if I go to a conference on pension funds and climate change, I have to get briefed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills because it does fiduciary stuff, and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change because it does climate change. Rather than amend pension legislation to deal with this little bit of the picture, we are trying to take an holistic view. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion knows, we have had the Kay review of fiduciary duty and long-termism, and we have the Law Commission review. We are trying to be as careful and as cross-departmental as we can, so we want to look at the whole investment chain and at how corporate governance, the law of the land and pensions will be affected, to make change in an integrated and connected way.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his positive comments. I take the point that the pension aspect is not the full picture, but it is a big part of it. If we want to make quicker progress on this issue, can he advise where we should best table our next amendments?

[Steve Webb]

In someone else’s legislation—[Laughter.] Just between ourselves, I encourage the hon. Lady to keep up the pressure across Government, including at Business, Innovation and Skills questions, Energy and Climate Change questions and Work and Pensions questions. To be frank, this issue is not always at the top of the pension agenda, so I welcome the amendments for that reason. I am reluctant, however, to amend the Bill in a piecemeal fashion, when I hope that we can have a more overarching framework affecting company law, business regulation and the duties of trustees not only in pensions but beyond. I am sympathetic to what she is trying to achieve, but we want to do it in a systematic, cross-Government way rather than dealing with just a bit of the issue. I look forward to hearing what she has to say, but I hope that she will withdraw new clause 12.

Scale is important. I do not think anyone doubts that, on average, bigger schemes produce better outcomes than smaller schemes, in the sense that, typically, bigger schemes have lower costs; they have the potential to diversify and pool risk; they have access to investment vehicles that smaller schemes perhaps do not; they have access to better quality investment advice; and they have more experienced trustees. We can see why, on average, a big scheme will probably do better than a small scheme. Just as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is searching for golden bullets on independent trustees—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

That is an interesting point. The answer is yes, but they are not in the hundreds. They come in two types. One type number those who are either still working there and are concerned about possible changes to the defined benefit scheme and exactly the issue I have just gone through with the Minister. I hope that that will be reassuring to the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as to mine.

The second type of person who has been in touch relates to the third constituency query I was going to raise: those members who are covered by the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990. I see the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) nodding and suspect that she has been contacted by people in a similar situation. The issue is that their pensions might be affected by changes to their pension schemes to reflect these higher national insurance costs. I understand that the Government have still not responded to their own consultation on whether to exempt protected persons from these changes. The Minister might care to comment on that later. It might be something that the Treasury is involved in, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, but I think that it would be right to express concern on behalf of some of the pensioners involved. However, I understand that there is an argument that both existing pensioners and current members of a pension scheme should be treated with consistency on that. I raise the issue so that the Minister can respond. Those were the three queries on bereavement, change of occupational schemes—which has been answered—and the protected persons scheme.

In conclusion, what the Government are proposing in the Pensions Bill is important and will make a difference. The changes will enable people to save and that saving will pay. The technical details, which the Minister covered earlier, are important for smoothing out some of the small but niggly details that will affect our constituents in due course.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am disappointed by the approach taken by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. For him and his party to fall back on a slogan of “consultation not action” really was disappointing; after 86 minutes we would have hoped for a great deal more clarity on his precise proposals. What exactly does he intend to do on charges? In the absence of such clarity, I hope that he and Members from all parties will make substantive contributions to the consultation so that we can agree on the charges, make changes to the annuity details and say with pride to all our constituents that this Pensions Bill will make a difference to all our lives in retirement.

[Caroline Lucas]

I have tabled new clause 12 and amendments 54 and 55 to highlight the need for the Department for Work and Pensions to address the systemic risks posed by climate change and natural resource depletion to pension schemes as a whole, and to suggest some positive solutions.

The Minister has already mentioned the report launched today as part of the new green light campaign by ShareAction, in partnership with the trade unions and environmental groups, which highlights the urgent need for reforms to the pension industry to ensure that it takes greater account of climate and environmental risks. I am glad that the Minister was able to be present to launch it.

Obviously, pension funds use the money paid into them every month to make investments in shares of companies, bonds, properties and other assets, which makes them enormously powerful players in shaping the economy, especially as they have significant investments in fossil fuel companies. However, if we want to keep climate change below dangerous levels, we need pension funds to fund and support a low-carbon economy by, for example, investing in clean technologies and low-carbon infrastructure projects. Moreover, today’s report shows that the UK pension funds have £3 trillion at risk from so-called unusable fossil fuel investments—fossil fuels which, if we are serious about keeping to our climate change commitments, we simply cannot afford to burn. That is a huge threat to the incomes of future pensioners.

In the UK an increasing number of voices are speaking out about the need for pension funds and others to divest themselves of fossil fuel assets. Operation Noah has launched “Bright Now”, a church divestment campaign whose first success came early this month when Quakers in Britain announced that they will disinvest from companies engaged in extracting fossil fuels, which made them the first UK Christian denomination to do so.

UK university students are increasingly engaged in divestment campaigns, as evidenced by the work undertaken by People & Planet. To date, there are 19 active divestment campaigns across the UK, including universities with large endowments: Cambridge, Oxford and Edinburgh.

Looking further afield, 70 of the largest pension funds in the US and the world issued a statement last week setting out their view that major fossil fuel companies may not be as profitable in the future, precisely because of efforts to limit climate change. They are asking for details on how the firms will manage a long-term shift to cleaner energy sources.

Here at Westminster, the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report on the Kay review of the UK equity market and long-term decision making, which was produced earlier this year, recommended that the stewardship code should do more to address environmental, social and governance factors and systemic financial risks, as well as calling for more robust reporting on conflicts of interest.

I agree with the Minister’s comments this morning about the need for a fiduciary duty to consider climate and environmental risks to our pension system and for this to be in the mainstream, first, because that is important to reduce the risks to pension holders themselves, and secondly, in order to harness the huge contribution that pension funds can make to the massive investment that we need in clean energy infrastructure. New clause 12 and amendments 54 and 55 make modest proposals of ways in which the Department could make that happen.

New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to

“commission an independent review of the implications of climate change and natural resource constraints for the sustainability of private pensions.”

The review should

“consider the implications for long-term investment outcomes for members of work-based pension schemes of potential…systemic risks posed by high levels of exposure to fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive assets…economic and physical impacts of climate change under various climate mitigation scenarios; and…constraints on the availability of non-renewable resources”,

such as food, land and water resources.

That proposal builds on a landmark paper by the actuarial profession that modelled the implication of resource constraints for private pensions and found that, even in the best-case scenario, pension outcomes are likely to be worse than predicted because the industry is not factoring in risks associated with those constraints on food, water and land. In the worst-case scenario, savers in the model of a defined-contribution pension scheme were only half as well off, while the defined-benefit pension scheme became insolvent. The new clause also builds on work by Carbon Tracker on unburnable carbon, which shows that if the aim is to secure long-term returns, divesting from fossil fuel assets would be a pretty sensible thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I find that shaming.

One of the reasons to be active in public service is to identify injustice and to work against it. It might take months, years or decades, but this is a fight for which I would like to see more support from the Opposition and from those on my own side. My hon. Friend has mentioned Jim Tilley. I want to mention John Markham, the director of public affairs for the International Consortium of British Pensioners, who is based in Toronto, in Canada. He has pointed out:

“Approximately 10% of all pensioners live abroad, roughly 1 million people. Of that million, 50% receive annual increases to their state pension, and the other 50% do not, solely based on country of residence.”

That arbitrary, historical decision is unjustifiable.

I am not going to quote back to the Minister what he said about this before he became a Minister. Some people have to go through that embarrassment, but I do not want to subject him to it. I will say, however, as we approach Remembrance Sunday and Armistice day, that the countries in which we have shared war memorials are those most likely to be affected. They are the countries whose people served in the former British empire and Commonwealth armies, and those people are the ones who are not getting the increase.

John Markham goes on to say:

“The recent select Committee on the new single tier Pension Bill declared it to be an anomaly that should be fixed.”

I have mentioned the Oxford Economics report. The Department for Work and Pensions might say that that was just a small survey, and that the benefits would take years to accrue. Well, the sooner we start, the better. The argument for doing it is not that it will pay this country, but that it is right.

I could go through the other arguments used by Julian Ridsdale, but there is restricted time for the debate, and it would be interesting to hear what the Labour Front-Bench team has to say. I know, too, that others wish to speak on this issue and to other amendments in the group. Let me declare the best judgment at the end of this debate. We will say no to clause 20, but we will not force a walk-through Division. That is a way of illustrating what we feel, without unduly taking up the House’s time, when Third Reading is also ahead of us. I hope the House will understand that.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has spoken passionately about the importance of fairness and justice. I believe that those very same principles underlie the issue I want to raise this afternoon. I want to speak to my new clause 6, while confirming my support for new clause 8. Those new clauses both relate to the group of women who will not qualify for the single-tier pension, whereas men with the same date of birth will.

One of my constituents, Catherine Kirby, has been a passionate and tireless champion for women in her position. Understandably, she feels that she and others in her situation are faced with a dual disadvantage of being subject to an increase in the state pension age under the 1995 Act, while being denied eligibility for the single-tier pension. Not all, but some of these women will be left with a lower weekly state pension compared with men of the same age. No wonder my constituent, like many others, believes this creates unnecessary and unjustifiable inequality and discrimination.

The Minister has said in the past that women in the position of my constituent should defer, but for those on low incomes who are unable to work and do not have a convenient pot of money, that is not an option. He has explained in the past that because the new system excludes additional benefits such as for bereavement, it is not possible for the Government to tell women what would be best for them. For some women, however, that is simply not relevant to their situation. They already know that they would be better off—by £15 a week, in Catherine’s case, which is significant.

The Minister has said that, over a lifetime, most of these women would get more than the average man with the same date of birth, but theoretical lifetime averages are simply irrelevant to the difficult financial situation faced by my constituents and others in the real world. It is their weekly pension income that matters, and I believe that that is what should occupy our attention as their representatives.

I will support Labour’s new clause 8, which calls for a review of whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new pension arrangements. That is not my preferred option, however. Not all will definitely lose out, and I do not think we necessarily need a review to find a solution that works for the relatively small but important number of women who may lose out.

My new clause 6 simply gives these women the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system set out in part 1 from its introduction in April 2016, if they judge it to be in their best interest to do so. It would not require the Government to tell them what to do, merely to ensure that information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women to make a comparison of total weekly income. The responsibility for making a choice would rest fully with the individual.

I believe this group of women deserve a much better deal, and if that means upgrading to the single tier, that should be permitted. If the Government do not do that, it will be an example of blatant discrimination. It would not be difficult to remedy the situation and it would make a huge difference to the women involved. This group of women certainly deserve better. They are the generation who campaigned for equality for women. They began their working lives being discriminated against; the Government can and should give them the right to be included in a new single-tier pension to ensure that they do not end their lives feeling discriminated against, as well.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Jim Tilley’s old friend, the British widow living in Australia on a frozen pension of less than £7 a week, is not a statistic. She is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. If this country cannot do what is right, I have to say that I feel a great sense of shame. The denial of the money to people who have in many cases served their country and fought for it—some of their friends and families have died for this country—and who have worked here and paid their taxes, is indefensible. Their case is morally right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I was asked about the issue when I appeared before the Select Committee, and I said that I sympathised with the pensioners we were talking about. I commented that my sympathy would butter no parsnips, meaning that it would not be worth a huge amount to the people involved, but I was vilified for using that phrase. I am not quite sure what to say, but I sympathise with the point that was made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West gave an example of someone on a pension of a few pounds a week being topped up by the Australian Government. I do not know about the individual case, but in general if all we did was increase that pension, we would not necessarily increase the pensioner’s standard of living, because all that would do is take money out of what they get from the Australian Government. If we are concerned about their standard of living, increasing their pension in a means-tested system would not necessarily help.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about giving women between 51 and 53 a choice, and when the shadow Minister was asked for his opinion, he said that it was that we should have a review. Obviously that plays to the gallery and sounds sympathetic, but it is not actually suggesting a solution. The complexity that the hon. Lady and I have talked about is not so much that we could not give people all the information, because we could, although it is complicated to put across; the problem is that nobody knows what their future is. A woman could choose to take the single-tier pension on day one, which would look like the right thing to do because she would get more than she does under the current system, but if her husband died the next day she would not get a derived widow’s pension and she would have made herself worse off as a result.

[Caroline Lucas]

I take the Minister’s point, but my point is that it should be for that woman to decide. Yes, there is a risk, but she is better placed to make the judgment than he is. Many women would want that change, and he has not given a good reason why it should not happen.

[Steve Webb]

In addition to the issue of people who will subsequently be bereaved is that of people who will flow on to savings credit, and nobody can possibly know whether, at some point during the course of their retirement, they will move on to that. Although I understand the concerns that have been raised, that group of women have actually benefited from the triple lock that we have introduced. Far from doing them down, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has suggested, we have improved their pension position. On his more general point about the position of women in the pension system, this whole Bill is about improving that position. That is why I urge the House to reject the amendments and to support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has been looking doleful for much of questions. I shall do my best to rescue her from her misery.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am entirely grateful, Mr Speaker, but my dolefulness has more to do with the responses from the Government than with my not catching your eye.

The Government’s main reason for denying women born between 1951 and 1953 the option of receiving the single-tier pension if that means a higher weekly income appears to be the uncertainty about when their husbands will die. That is irrelevant for single, unmarried female pensioners—the poorest of all groups in retirement—who know that they would be better off with a choice. Will the Minister reconsider his policy so that the Government can help my constituents and others like them?

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope that I conduct this debate in a workman-like way, as I did the debate on the allocation of time motion. The Bill will ensure that following the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Wilson and Reilly v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the taxpayer will not have to repay to claimants the benefits lost because of their failure to take part in mandatory back-to-work programmes. It will also enable the Government to impose benefit sanctions on those who fail to participate in a mandatory programme where a decision has been put on hold because of the Wilson and Reilly case.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Is it not the reality that this is a multi-billion pound failed flagship scheme, which was condemned by the Public Affairs Committee as extremely poor? Having lost a case and fearing that they will lose the appeal, the Government, instead of respecting our justice system, are abusing our emergency procedures to fix the consequences of losing? Does that show not a shocking disrespect both for our courts and for the principle that workers should be paid the minimum wage?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady clearly has a press release that she wants to set out this afternoon. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, she says that it is a good press release. I wish it were an accurate one. The reality is that our schemes are helping to get people back into work. It is vital that people who are looking for work are given help to get into work, and we are offering that. Up to the end of September, 200,000 people found work as a consequence of the Work programme. If she thinks that that is a failure, she is insulting the people who have got work through the Work programme. She should recognise the benefits that such schemes bring. To allow people not to take part in them is breaking a contract between us and the unemployed. We give them the support that they need to get back into work and we expect them to take up that offer of support. If they do not take up that offer, it is right that they are penalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that many people in this country will be shocked to learn that the official Opposition want to vote for this Bill precisely because they want to impose sanctions on people on workfare? Let me give him the example of a 58-year-old constituent of mine who has been unemployed for seven months. She was told that she had to travel miles to work in a Scope charity shop in Worthing or lose benefits. She could not afford to get to Worthing, so she offered to work in the Scope shop in Brighton, but the jobcentre would not allow it. Should she be sanctioned?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point, and that is why we have sought to ensure that the Bill includes our safeguards, which preserve the right to appeal with good cause, and the 13-month appeal window during which people can lodge objections to the sanctions regime. To answer the hon. Lady directly, I do believe that the DWP should be equipped with the power to issue sanctions. That general foundation has been in the hands of Ministers for more than a century. The new deal programmes and the future jobs fund that Labour put in place had sanctions attached to them—indeed, they were tightened by the Welfare Reform Act 2009—and I do not believe that those powers should be empty ones. However, nor do I believe they should be in the ether—in the hands of Ministers who have no obligation to put in place genuine back-to-work programmes that are better than doing nothing, unlike today’s Work programme.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

It is utterly daft. I have seen cases in my own constituency where relatively minor changes to local authority support services have destabilised the balancing act performed by families who provide care while juggling work and family commitments. I have met far too many family carers who are already at the end of their endurance, compromising their own health and well-being to continue to care. When carers cannot cope any more or their own health breaks down, the human cost is immense and the financial cost of primary health care spending and the need for expensive care packages are incalculable. The bedroom tax undermines the ability of families to continue to care.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that this policy will lead to greater homelessness and evictions, which are not only massively painful, but massively costly, does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just cruel, but counter-productive and another attack by this Government on the poor?

[Dr Whiteford]

The policy is not only counter-productive; it is just not thought through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

We have already made one specific exemption. Someone who needs a spare room for a non-resident, overnight carer can have it. That is an absolute right, and people do not have to apply for it. However, someone who is in particular need can approach the local authority, which has discretion—after all, the D in DHP stands for discretion; there is no set of national Whitehall-driven rules—and the authority can then judge whether the household is indeed in particular need of help from the budget that has been allocated to it. We have not set out a rigid blueprint; the whole point is that local authorities will have discretion to meet people and, if they think it a priority, to meet their needs.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for pointing out that the D stands for discretion, but as far as I can see it stands for draconian. The Minister is trying to give the impression that people need not worry, because they can approach their council to get the extra money. Does he not realise that the extra money that he is providing is a pittance in comparison with the amount that is needed? This is essentially an ideological attack on social housing: the Government are simply trying to get rid of it.

[Steve Webb]

It is astonishing that the hon. Lady should suggest that we are trying to get rid of social housing, given that we have built more affordable housing in the last year than was built, on average, over the preceding 10 years under Labour. That is an absurd suggestion. I entirely understand that the hon. Lady opposes everything—it is a kind of nihilism, which is fair enough—but her suggestion is not a credible option for a credible Government.

The research that we will undertake will include small-scale primary research involving a range of local authorities, social landlords and voluntary organisations in England, Scotland and Wales. The researchers will consider supply issues, rural effects—which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—and people who are unable to share rooms. When possible, they will also consider the effects on vulnerable individuals and their financial circumstances, social networks and family life. That was mentioned earlier as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I pay tribute to the powerful opening speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

On the Opposition Benches, it is not a question of shroud-waving, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) suggested, but a recognition of the people we see in our surgeries week in, week out. The fear of this measure is such that people believe it to be a bedroom tax, a cruel and counter-productive measure from a Government intent on punishing the poor. It is cruel because it is likely to lead to more evictions, homelessness, disruption and despair and because it takes no account of people’s real circumstances—as we have heard many times, more than two thirds of those affected are likely to be people with disabilities—and it is counter-productive because it is highly unlikely to lead to the outcomes that the Government claim to want. Not only are there insufficient smaller properties for families to move to, but the measure is more likely to cost money than save it. Evictions are not only hugely painful, but hugely costly, estimated at about £10,000 a time.

As has been revealed in this debate, the truly cynical nature of the proposal was revealed by the Government’s own impact assessment, which made it clear that the projected savings will be made only if tenants remain in their existing homes and make up the shortfall in benefits themselves. In other words, the money that this measure is supposed to raise will be raised only if the stated policy aim of getting people to move house does not actually work. That is immensely cynical. The truth is that many people are struggling in such desperate circumstances that they simply cannot find the extra money to pay.

The bottom line is that we have a major housing crisis, with nowhere near enough affordable homes. In my own constituency, for example, more than 15,000 households are on Brighton and Hove’s waiting list, but just 750 properties become available every year. It is successive Governments who have caused this housing crisis, not the poor who struggle to cope with it. It is not the fault of people who cannot get a job, of disabled people, of people who share the care of their children or of foster parents. The crucial problem—this is where the fault lies—is the epic failure of both the Tories and new Labour on council housing. The Tories pushed the decimation of the stock with the right to buy, ignoring the right to rent, and new Labour tweaked the enormous discounts but did not grasp the nettle and build council housing. For example, in 2007-08, only 350 new council homes were built. It is deeply unjust to penalise people who are struggling at the bottom of a housing market over which they have little or no control.

Ministers give blasé answers to serious parliamentary questions about this nasty measure. They say, “Get a job, get a lodger or move somewhere else.” They ignore the fact that, for many people, those options are simply not possible. On average, five people are chasing every vacancy—in some places, the figure is much higher—so how are those jobs suddenly going to appear? As other hon. Members have pointed out, the rooms in question are often too small to rent out, or not “spare” at all. Ministers have suggested that social landlords might want to redefine a property as having fewer rooms when the spare room is extremely small, but we know that most social landlords cannot reduce their rents because they need the money for repairs and for servicing the debts they have for building more stock.

What will happen to the person with severe mental health problems who has been settled for years and who is deeply distressed by change but who has a tiny box room? They cannot take a lodger because of their unpredictable episodes, they cannot afford the rent because of the box room and there is no smaller property available locally. What is supposed to happen to them?

I have not yet heard Ministers deny the existence of the acute housing crisis, yet they conveniently attack the people who are facing the worst end of it. They also overlook the cumulative impact of so many cuts. In Brighton and Hove, practically every household affected by the bedroom tax will also be affected by the Government-imposed cut to the council tax benefit budget, and a good proportion of them will also be hit by the changes to disability living allowance. Changes to the scope of what is covered under legal aid from April will mean that benefit issues will not be covered, so there will be less opportunity for people to receive in-depth advice or to challenge decisions in court.

This pernicious policy will not scratch the surface of our overcrowding crisis, as it will simply create new housing emergencies for people who were previously just managing to get by. The local authority in Brighton estimates that the total cost of an eviction process, including temporary accommodation, is around £10,000 per eviction. The Government say that it will not come to that, but they are simply not in touch with reality. Of the 1,000 or so households affected in Brighton and Hove, the majority are already struggling with rent arrears of around £2 a week. Where on earth are they supposed to magic a further £16 a week in bedroom tax from?

A constituent who is desperately worried about the bedroom tax came to my surgery last week. She shares custody of her daughter, so the room that she has for her daughter is seen as spare. She simply does not have the money to pay the tax being levied on her. In order to open Ministers’ eyes to the daily reality that some of my constituents face, I would like to read out a short amount of a testimony written by her. She says:

“I have no more basics to cut back on. I go without meals. I cannot afford the bus, toiletries, a newspaper. I wear trousers most days as I cannot afford to replace my pair of tights should they get laddered. If I had not been able to overcome my pride and seek help I do not know how my family would survive. It was difficult to overcome the sense of shame I felt for needing to turn to charity for support in meeting the family’s most basic needs. I do voluntary work in the community myself. This did not match my own sense of who I am but it is my reality and has to be faced. I now see those others who also depend on the food banks and support from charities like the City Mission in a new light. I see their resilience and humanity. We are the same.”

I was in tears by the end of my meeting with her.

We are talking about real people in real homes who are feeling real desperation, and the criticism that we are somehow exaggerating the situation is an insult to those constituents who come to see us. Ministers are recklessly and deliberately ignoring the harsh reality for the majority of those surviving on benefits. They are deliberately pandering to media stereotypes. How convenient it is to say that it is all the fault of the workshy, swanning about with all that spare space—or so the mean and mistaken narrative goes.

Going back to reality, the homes of a lot of the people affected by this policy are not too big for their needs. Their homes meet their needs, from the padded box room that a single mother uses to keep her autistic son safe when he is having an episode, to the extra room used by a disabled person to store their equipment, and to the room used for half the week by the child whose parents are separated.

There are many reasons why what appears to the Government to be spare space is in fact not spare at all, but essential. It will always be possible to find a small number of examples of people who genuinely have more space than they need, but that does not justify the Government’s crass blanket policy. The experts are saying that if we want to help people into smaller properties, we should give them support, sensitively, to find the right property. We should not force them out with the threat of eviction. We also know that the right kind of properties often do not exist. I asked a parliamentary question to find out whether the Government had carried out an assessment of how many appropriate smaller properties existed. They have not done any such assessment, because they do not care. Then, when we put that argument to them, they will come back and tell us that the discretionary housing payments are supposedly a magic wand that will solve all problems. The pot of discretionary housing payment is tiny compared to the cuts being made. It is obvious that demand will massively outstrip supply.

In Brighton and Hove, for example, the projected housing benefit shortfall has been modelled by the local authority as over £12 million, including shortfall from cuts to local housing allowance, bedroom tax and the benefit cap. The Government have given a DHP pot of just over £1 million to the city. That covers only about 8% of the housing benefit cuts that people will face. The DHP is tiny and nowhere near adequate.

The Government try to justify these cuts on the grounds that they are “making work pay”, but when Ministers use that phrase, it is really a code for punishing people for being poor. Of course work should pay; we need decent living wages pay, not poverty pay. The hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) talks about the need to cut the housing benefit budget, but one way to do that would be to pay a decent living wage in the first place. It is not the fault of people who cannot get a job or who are unable to work that employers do not pay people properly.

There will be a potential push to move people from social housing to different sized private sector accommodation, which does not have the same security of tenure and could cost more. What the Government should be doing is massively increasing the supply of affordable, sustainable, decent homes and legislating to allow for far greater security of tenure, which would go some way to holding rents down. The bottom line is that the Government must stop relying on the profit motive to supply housing for people who are poor; it will take time, but we absolutely need to fund a real programme of sustainable mass council housing.

This Government, however, are going in the opposite direction. This is a policy that will lead to bad debts and eviction, and will dramatically undermine the financial stability of the social housing model. If we combine that with the Government’s refusal to allow people the choice to pay their housing benefit directly to the landlord under universal credit, we genuinely have a recipe for the end of social housing. As landlords are faced with the lose-lose situation of either accumulating bad debt as people simply cannot pay the tax, or facing the even higher cost of debt collection and eviction, the long-term future of social housing looks bleak. How unjust this will look in the history books when the banks get bailed out and the poor get thrown out.

Before Government Members challenge me by asking how we would pay for this investment, let me say that I am not afraid of saying that it is perfectly legitimate to borrow to invest. The idea that that is somehow irresponsible, coming from this Government who have now led us into the triple-dip recession, is an absolute irony. I do not know what the Labour Front-Bench team will say on this issue, but I have no compunction about saying that it is absolutely right to borrow to invest in affordable housing and in the kind of infrastructure that we need in the 21st century. The idea that, as a Government, as a nation, as a European Union of nations, the best way of addressing the deficit is by everybody cutting spending and draining demand out of the economy has been proved to be wrong over and over again. More and more economists are saying that, too. I hope that, for the sake of us all, this Government wake up and see that very soon.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more progress and then I will gladly give way again.

In moving amendment 12, I wish to focus on the effect of clause 1, as it stands, on child poverty. Previously—reflecting the commitment in the coalition agreement to eradicate child poverty by 2020—the Government have published the effect of Budgets, spending reviews and autumn statements on child poverty. We know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, taking account of everything that the Government announced before the autumn statement, child poverty is set to go up by 400,000 by 2015 and 800,000 by 2020. In this autumn statement, they did not mention child poverty at all. There was no mention in the impact statement, where it should have been. I tabled a question and the Minister told me that he would reply as soon as possible: I am still waiting.

Despite the Government’s best efforts, the answer did slip out in an answer from a different Minister. In that, we read that the three years of uprating will increase child poverty by an additional 200,000 on top of the increase that is already due. That means that we are on track for 1 million more children below the poverty line by 2020. That is a devastating blow and will undo all the progress of the last 15 years.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The powerful figures that the right hon. Gentleman cites show that this is a cruel and callous Bill. Given that that is the case, does he not think that Labour supporters might be disappointed that he will not commit now to re-link the upratings with RPI? Nor has Labour said that if it were to form a Government next time, they would reverse the Bill. Is not there a danger that people will think that it is all rhetoric and no action from the Opposition?

[Stephen Timms]

The time to announce how benefits would be uprated for next year is later this year in the normal way. The time for the following year is the end of next year. We reject the Bill, which is the Chancellor’s partisan and unprecedented device to set out the trajectory for two years’ time, before we know anything about the future course of inflation.

Ministers still say that they are committed to eradicating child poverty. It says so in the coalition agreement. That commitment is clearly now fictitious. The Bill is simply incompatible with that commitment. Ministers should stop pretending. They have given up on reducing child poverty. They have not just given up on publishing the numbers as they used to do: they have given up on delivering the goal as well. Now they are implementing policies that will force child poverty up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I quite agree. I would like to see a more generous regime for disabled people, as my hon. Friend rightly says. To pay for that, I have come up with suggestions both on getting more people back into work, which is the best way, and on dealing with the issue of eligibility so that only our own deserving cases get the generous treatment that we rightly expect.

In summary, the policy is not easy. Ministers have to watch to make sure that it does not become unintentionally more penal. We want much more work on the side of promoting jobs and growth because we come here to eliminate poverty, not to make it worse. It is also time for the Opposition to join the serious conversation about how we tackle these obstinate and difficult issues, given that the high-level aims—getting rid of poverty and making it more worth while to work—are, mercifully, shared across the House.

[Caroline Lucas]

I will speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name. It is an attempt, at least, to neuter what I believe is a cruel and callous Bill by restoring the historic link between benefits and tax credits and the retail prices index.

It is a fiction that benefit levels are too high. Someone who relies on benefits is poor and will be struggling to survive from week to week; if any unexpected costs occur, they will probably have to go without or go into debt. The Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that we do not know at least two important things about the Bill: we do not know what the actual effects of breaking the link with prices will be, because that will depend on future price levels, which exposes the poorest in society to serious inflation risk; and secondly, we do not know the Government’s view on how benefits should be indexed in the longer run, and we ought to.

What are we to make of the Government’s long-term policy intentions? Unfortunately, I think they are clear: to chip away at the welfare state and leave people to fend for themselves, with US-style deprivation for the unsuccessful. It is a scandal to expose poor people to such risk and insecurity, especially at the same time as the most wealthy are set to enjoy a significant tax cut. That is why I have tabled my amendments, which represent the very minimum safety net that must be in place.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady explain whether she tabled amendment 7 because RPI is normally higher than CPI, or because she believes that it is a better way of working out inflation?

[Caroline Lucas]

I think the answer is probably both of the above. Recently, the RPI has been higher. I would have been happy to look at an amendment—no such amendment exists, unfortunately—that combined the work that the hon. Gentleman’s party has been doing on earnings with my effort to get a link back to the RPI and prices. We should look at whichever is the most generous. I stuck to the RPI link in my amendment because I wanted it to be realistic enough to get more support across the House. I fear that I might have been a little over-ambitious.

It worries me that instead of seeking to restore the link to prices, the official Opposition have not sought to protect people who are seeking work, but appear to have picked out one or two benefits, such as employment and support allowance and maternity benefit, for proper protection. They have ignored, for example, those on jobseeker’s allowance, as long as some sort of workfare system is brought in for people who have been looking for work for two years. Do the Opposition think that it is okay for the link to be broken for JSA recipients in the meantime? The Opposition amendments offer an improvement to a nasty Bill, and for that I support them, but I believe they expose a certain cowardice in not confronting the stereotypes and myths that the Government continue to perpetrate. Why are the Opposition not standing up for unemployed people and restoring the link to RPI? I do not accept that they could not consider that principle today, and it is disappointing that they will not. A link to prices is an absolute minimum, a safety net red line.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that she is advocating a return to a link between all benefits and the retail prices index from now on? In 2012-13, benefits went up by 5.3% and the Office for National Statistics labour statistics show that the pay of all those in work went up on average by 2.1%. What impact does the hon. Lady think that would have over a few years on the morale of people in work? Would it act as an incentive to work, or to retreat back to benefits as fast as possible?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention shows the different beliefs that he and I have about the great British public. I do not believe that most people have to be pushed into work by cruel incentives; I believe that the vast majority want to work, contribute and feel part of a wider society. That is where he and I differ.

[Richard Graham]

I am with the hon. Lady; I do believe that most people want to work. I am asking her about the impact it will have if somebody off work continually gets double, if not more, the increase that working people get. Surely she understands that there is a link.

[Caroline Lucas]

The proposition is spurious. First, it happens very rarely; secondly, we ought to look at the actual amounts of money involved. The Government talk glibly about percentages, but the percentage of something very small is still very small. The amounts that we are talking about do not make that much difference. What does make a difference is social solidarity and the sense of people really being in it together. If this Government cared more about making that a reality than just having the rhetoric, we might stand a chance of securing a happier and better-off society.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I should like to make some progress because I have let the hon. Gentleman in twice.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Lady would of course also argue that historically benefits have been very low indeed and, in fact, the amount of money that people have to live on is miserably low. I think that the majority of the British public would accept that and accept that we need to raise benefits substantially. That is why it is so important to use a rate that raises benefits by the highest amount, perhaps by RPI or earnings.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his intervention. I think that people do want that to happen, partly because it is what they would want if they themselves fell into difficulties, and it is what they would want for their families and friends, who unfortunately and increasingly are in exactly that position.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will give way in a moment, but I should like to make a little progress on the other amendments.

The Opposition have supported the public sector pay freeze and the switch from RPI to CPI introduced by the coalition, saying that they did so on a short-term basis to tackle the deficit. The former shadow Pensions Minister, now shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said that the Opposition supported the switch to CPI indexation as a temporary measure, and in July 2011 she said:

“Making a permanent change from the use of the retail prices index to the consumer prices index with the impact being felt even after the deficit is long gone is an ideologically driven move that we do not support.”––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 14 July 2011; c. 293.]

My contention is that people are suffering now and that is why the link to prices should be restored now. The Opposition seem to have swallowed the Government line that this measure is necessary despite acknowledging that it is ideologically driven. I repeat my disappointment that apparently they will not support my amendment 7.

This is a debate about priorities, not necessarily about affordability. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) made very clear during his strong speech on Second Reading, today, prices are increasing and they have been rising faster than earnings in recent years. We are in the grip of a harsh public sector pay freeze imposed by the Government and supported by the Opposition. If the Opposition really believe in making sure that benefits reflect the increase in the price of a pint of milk or a pair of school shoes, or what it really costs to make sure that people can survive without becoming destitute, I ask them again to reconsider whether they might support my amendment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady share my puzzlement that she has tabled an amendment—a principled amendment with which I disagree—suggesting that the RPI measure of inflation should be used, and yet the official Opposition will not support it although they gave a commitment at the Dispatch Box that they wanted inflation uprating? Does she not find that strange?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has encapsulated what I said in my earlier intervention and what I am saying now. Yes, it is strange, and disappointing.

Let me say a few words about RPI and earnings. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) have tabled amendments on earnings that would improve the Bill, and I support them. However, we have a public sector pay freeze, and earnings growth right now is slow; people are experiencing falling living standards as energy bills and food prices rise faster than income. In the longer term, however, earnings are important. Since the second world war, the UK norm has been for earnings to rise faster than prices, with real wages rising in most years, driving living standards higher.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

Let me make a bit more progress.

It is worth remembering that benefits were linked to earnings until 1980, when the Thatcher Government changed the link to prices in order to save money. That was a deliberate and aggressive policy to run down benefit levels. In 1980, unemployment benefits were one fifth of average earnings; today, they are one tenth. Earnings are important in the long term, but in the current context, I worry that focusing on earnings when they are so low, without the link to RPI, risks being a smokescreen for existing Government policy. I worry that without the additional protection of a link to prices, the link to earnings will not protect people from inflation risk over the next three years. People must, at the very minimum, be able to keep up with the rising cost of living. My personal view is that benefits should increase either in line with RPI or in line with average earnings, depending on which is higher, but I deliberately tabled a more modest amendment that would just restore the link to RPI because I wanted to press the Committee to provide that minimum protection in the face of this Bill, and hoped that such an amendment would garner more support.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Lady stated earlier that a 1% increase in benefits is a very small increase on a very small amount of money. Is she aware that the welfare budget is almost a third of all Government spending and is by no stretch of the imagination a small amount of money?

[Caroline Lucas]

If the hon. Gentleman made a distinction between the overall benefits bill and pensions, he might find that he had a rather different set of figures before him.

It is not true that the Government are doing this to be fair. The measure is an unnecessary, spiteful and counter-productive attack on the poor. It is unnecessary because it is ludicrous to blame the unemployed and the low-paid for the deficit and to elicit from them the highest price for paying it off when high earners are receiving tax breaks. As the Government well know but conveniently forget, the culprits behind the entire financial crisis were the bankers on their very high incomes, many of whom do very well from over-generous tax relief on pension contributions and will benefit from the tax cut that is being granted to the highest earners with the abolition of the 50p rate. I welcome the Opposition’s amendment on the latter point.

The measure is spiteful because the Government insist on suggesting that it is somehow unfair that benefits have gone up by 20% when they know very well that 20% of very little is very little, and that in cash terms the average annual increase for those on jobseeker’s allowance over the past five years has been just £2.37—that is hardly the life of Riley that Ministers are pretending. Again and again they frame the debate around misleading percentages instead of the reality of hard cash increases that are far lower for people on benefits than for those in work.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady talks about reality. The reality that the country faces is that we are running a huge deficit year on year and have been doing so for some years. Will she say a little about that? Can she say how she proposes to pay for the policy she advocates and how much it would cost?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and yes, I can tell him how much it would cost: about £7.3 billion, according to the Library.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, so he should let me answer it; I am very happy to do so. We face a number of choices, and the key thing is where we decide that the axe is going to fall. His Government would like the axe to fall on the poorest and most vulnerable; I would prefer that it fell on those with the broadest shoulders. That is the difference between us. It is also important to say that his Government’s policies are draining demand out of the economy and making the deficit worse. If I were in his shoes, I would be looking to see why my own Government’s policies are exacerbating the deficit, not making it better. If we looked for some alternatives, we might find a more positive way forward.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I have let the hon. Gentleman intervene once, and I think that is probably enough.

The policy is also counter-productive. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) would like to listen to this, because it addresses his point. Such a measure is counter-productive because, first, if money is taken from people who are only just surviving, they will experience more crises that the state will then have to step and pay for; and secondly, if money is put into the pockets of the poorest, they will spend it into the economy and thus address the deficit that we are trying to deal with.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that the policies of extremely expensive energy that she promotes are at the root of poverty now, and that if she would reverse her policies and go for cheap energy, we might be able to do something for the people we want to help?

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his attempt, but it was a bit feeble. All the evidence from Deutsche bank, the International Energy Agency and many other places tells us that rising fuel bills are a result of rising gas prices, and the percentage extra on people’s fuel bills that is coming from renewable energy, which, sadly, he is not a fan of, is very much smaller. I do not agree with his premise.

If our priority is fairness, we should be seeking savings from those who can afford it, not penalising the poorest and pushing them into ever more precarious misery. Without this very basic link to RPI, what exactly are we saying to people on benefits? We are giving them a message of punishment that says, “You’ve done something wrong. It’s your fault that you don’t have a job and the state is going to make life hard for you.” Frankly, that is despicable. Oxfam says that it is Dickensian and rightly points out that slashing the incomes of those at the bottom is not just cold-hearted but wrong-headed, because it will depress the economy further.

I said earlier that most people want to work, and I could cite very many examples from my own constituency of people who have come to my surgeries who are desperate for work but have been unable to find it. The link to RPI, as I have said, is essential. It is the absolute minimum acceptable. The Government have already taken from the poorest by switching to CPI and now they want to heap even more misery on people who simply cannot absorb it. Amendment 7 seeks to provide the most basic protection for benefits from the accumulative erosion of value that severing the historic link to prices will create. I commend the amendment, and hope to press it to a vote.

[Andrew George]

Amendment 10 stands in my name and in those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). Its purpose is to address the oft-repeated key concern of the Secretary of State and the Government—it has been repeated today by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and others—that in certain circumstances and, admittedly, over selected periods, benefits have risen at a rate higher than wages, and that in straitened times such as these, a principle should be established whereby that should not happen and that average wages should be the marker against which future benefit rises are set.

A further weakness in the Government’s proposals, to repeat an earlier intervention of mine on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), relates to their intention to enshrine in future policy the blunt and inflexible instrument of a 1% rise beyond the next general election—up until 2016—and whether we can foretell with confidence what is likely to happen during that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I will not for the moment, because my hon. Friend has joined our proceedings relatively recently. I should like to respond to the amendments that my hon. Friends and others have tabled, and I hope he understands that.

Amendment 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and supported by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), is in fantasy land, I am afraid. It not only rejects the savings in the Bill but would add additional savings on top by linking benefits to RPI. I have to give credit to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, because she knows how ludicrously expensive her amendment is and I am grateful to her for being frank about that. In a single year, it would cost £2.6 billion more than the current plan.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

Let me respond a little further. The hon. Lady said that we should choose RPI because, essentially, it is bigger on average. The point about correcting benefits for inflation is not just to find the biggest number possible, but to measure inflation properly and correct benefits accordingly. We could also have a separate debate about the adequacy of benefits, but to use a flawed inflation measure that even the Office for National Statistics, which constructs it, says does not meet international standards, is a crazy direction to take, even if the hon. Lady did not need to find £2.5 billion.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) addressed the fact that RPI is not a perfect indicator, but it is better than what we have. On the question of paying for our proposal, this is about priorities. If the Government limited tax relief on pension contributions to £26,000, that would give them £33 billion. If they cracked down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, they could get more than £100 billion. It is about political choices: this Government want to target the poorest and we do not.

[Steve Webb]

If it were trivial to raise £100 billion from the filthy rich, I suspect that most Governments would have been there by now.

The most credible, coherent amendment in this group is amendment 10, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). He was so nice about me that I was almost tempted to accept the amendment, but not quite. Let me explain the reasons why not.

The first relates to the specifics of the amendment, which links benefit increases in 2014-15 and 2015-16 to whatever amount average earnings grow by. Based on the forecasts—I accept that that is what they are—that would mean an above inflation increase in the second of those two years, because we think that average earnings in a couple of years’ time will be more than CPI, as is the case in many normal years. At a time when we all agree that money will be tight, my hon. Friend is suggesting that an above inflation benefit increase in the second of those two years should be a priority. I do not think that it should be. At a time when we will have to make other difficult decisions about saving, the first consequence of his amendment—I do not imagine that he meant this—would be to lock in what we expect to be an above inflation increase in benefits in 2015-16. I do not believe that that will be our priority at that point.

Had we been in Committee upstairs and the Bill had further stages to go through, my hon. Friend may well have said that this was a probing amendment and we could have had a chat about it, but if we were to agree to the amendment tonight it would become part of the Bill that will go to the other place. It is a serious amendment that would have an unintended consequence.

Secondly, this is not intended as a wrecking amendment, but it would have that effect. We estimate that it would wipe out virtually all the Bill’s savings. Although I understand that my hon. Friend shares my concern about the impact on people on low incomes, that money would have to be found somewhere else. I do not believe that there is a painless way of finding that money or that the social security budget would be exempted from finding it.

We have already had to do some very difficult things on welfare spending in the Parliament whereby we have targeted particular benefits and identified particular issues, and a relatively small number of people have faced large cash losses. This is a different approach. It is a gradual approach that will create much smaller losses, but for much larger numbers of people. At a time when we are trying to find savings from this budget, I believe that spreading the pain relatively thinly across a larger group, rather than focusing on a smaller one, is the way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

[Caroline Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether consideration could be given to how our business could be organised better, so that legitimate amendments could be put to a vote rather than being talked out. My amendment was supported by at least four parties, and the amendment of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) would no doubt have received significant support as well, but there was no time for that happen. I think that it would be a worrying precedent if the only amendments put to a vote were those tabled by members of the official Opposition.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Nothing has shocked me more as the Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts than the sheer scale of anxiety and hardship caused by the flawed work capability assessments, which is apparent in the number of people visiting my office every week. I am sure that that experience is replicated across the House and that we will hear many such stories today. I have had a frail lady sitting in my office who had only recently finished chemotherapy but had been told she was fit for work. I have had a lady who suffered 90% burns to her body—she spends every day in severe pain—and was told that she was now ready to join the Work programme. I could list hundreds of others—sadly, these are very familiar stories. These people are having their lives ruined by a system that was designed to support them.

Last year the whole country came together to celebrate the Paralympic games. I have to say that the vast majority of the country joined those booing in the Olympic park when the Chancellor took the spotlight, but he was not the only unpopular person at the games. Atos’s sponsorship was also widely condemned, leading to protests throughout the country, including by our very own Team GB. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government have not listened to the Scottish people on this. In fact, our Deputy First Minister has welcomed Atos’s sponsorship of the Commonwealth games next year. She has tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Atos is only carrying out the will of the UK Government. However, the Scottish people disagree not only with the structure of these work capability assessments but with the incompetence with which they are being carried out.

As I have such limited time today, I will restrict the rest of my comments to the recording of work capability assessments, which I have raised before on the Floor of the House. I know that there has been a pilot of recording work capability assessments as a result of Harrington review. The result was that the majority of those being assessed do not wish to have their assessments recorded. However, recording should continue to be offered to everyone being assessed, and the reason for doing this—the huge number of assessments whose results are overruled when they go to appeal—should also be explained to every claimant.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she agree that the Atos assessment process is not only humiliating and demeaning for those involved—and often plain wrong—but counter-productive, in the sense that it adds to the stress they are under, making sick people even sicker?

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I am sure she has had the experience, as I have, of seeing people who have claimed employment and support allowance as a result of a physical disability or illness ending up with mental health problems owing to the stress of going through the system.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will say two things about child poverty. First, we want to ensure that the figures published concern the years that this measure covers, and the year in which I will be introducing secondary legislation. The figures will be published next week in time for the debate—the Committee stage will be on the Floor of the House and everybody who is here today can take part.

Secondly, child poverty was calculated based on the median income line, and the previous Government lost control of it. Tax credits rocketed because they were chasing a moving line. As upper incomes rose, so did average earnings, and that is why they had to spend so much money. I remind the hon. Lady that they missed their targets in 2010 by 600,000 children in poverty. Since we have come in, the figures published this June show that child poverty fell by 300,000. I am not going to stand here today and try to claim credit for that fall. The figure fell because we saw the biggest fall in earnings for many years. Does that mean that because earnings fell child poverty has been solved? No, it does not. That is why we are consulting on a better way to measure child poverty.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Secretary of State brandishes the figure of a 20% increase in benefits in the past five years. In cash terms, jobseeker’s allowance has gone up from just £59.15 in 2007 to £71 in 2012. In other words, in each of those past years JSA has gone up by just £2.50. Is it not the truth that this is a mean and miserable piece of legislation from a mean and miserable Government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point; I have to say that I do not agree with her. Benefits have risen, but if she would like to talk to those who are in employment on lower incomes in her constituency she would find that many have seen absolutely no rise in their incomes at all, and some even less than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Bill is part of a war on the poor, waged largely by the very rich, who are deliberately doing all they can to divide individuals and set communities against each other. It is a reckless and dangerous measure that is likely to be massively counter-productive and to destabilise already struggling groups in society, pushing them into greater despair and desperation.

The Bill is not only hugely socially divisive, but is likely to be entirely counter-productive, even in the economic terms that the Government say are driving this set of policies. It will be counter-productive because as people are pushed into greater desperation, they are more likely to be forced to make greater calls on the state, for example as those who are struggling to pay rent are finally pushed into homelessness or as those who are struggling with mental disability or mental illness are finally tipped into greater ill health. It will be counter-productive because, as many hon. Members have said, if we want to get the economy moving again, the best way to do so is to put money into the pockets of the poorest, because they are the ones who will spend it in the local economy, not the very rich.

This is a mean and miserable Bill from a mean and miserable Government. I hope that it will be reversed at the first opportunity. I apologise if I have missed this, but I would love to hear a firm commitment from Labour that if it forms the next Government, it will reverse this Act, as it will then be.

I have been asking myself how this wretched Bill has got any currency at all. It is, of course, because of the deliberate lies, myths and misinformation that have surrounded it. There is the picture of the shirkers on benefits who have apparently enjoyed a lavish 20% income increase over the past five years. What a neatly seductive and simple picture that paints, but what a false and unfair one, particularly to the 2,136 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency, who come to me on a regular basis, desperately searching for work.

What does this lavish 20% increase mean in cash terms? I checked with the House of Commons Library. It means that in 2007, JSA was £59.15 a week and that five years later in 2012, it had gone up to just £71 a week. That is hardly a princely increase. The truth is that 20% of very little is still very, very little—but how useful it is to the Government to spin this attack on the poor! No wonder they never say what the 20% actually represents in cash terms.

Similarly, there is the 10% increase in average earnings for people who are in work. Again, the Government never say what that percentage means. For people on average earnings, that 10% increase means an increase in their weekly take-home pay of about £11 in each of the last five years. That is not enough and I oppose the public sector pay freezes, but it is still nearly four and a half times more in hard cash terms than the £2.50 annual increase for those on JSA.

It is therefore an outrageous and disingenuous attack on people who are seeking work to suggest that they are getting more than people who are in work when, in cash terms, they have got more than four times less. As the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) said so eloquently, it is cash terms, not percentages, that mean the most to ordinary people.

Getting tough on welfare is lazy, mean politics. It relies on misleading people and on conning the public into thinking that the system is more generous than it is and riddled with fraud. A poll commissioned by the TUC shows that, on average, people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently. The Government’s figure is 0.7%. Instead of feeding those misconceptions, the Government should be challenging them. Instead of penalising the poor, the Government should be supporting them.

I say again that this is a mean, miserable Bill. I hope that Members will reject it and I hope that I hear from Labour that it will reverse the Act if it gets into government next time around.