Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on the proposed annexation of parts of the West Bank.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

The UK is deeply concerned about the reports that the new Israeli Government coalition have reached an agreement that may pave the way for annexation of parts of the west bank. Any unilateral move towards the annexation of parts of the west bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to restart the peace process and contradictory to international law, and might make the chances of a sustainable two-state solution harder. We recently made clear our concerns at the UN Security Council remote meeting on the middle east peace process on 23 April.

[James Cleverly]

Our long-standing position is that such a move would be contrary to international law. We continue to have a constructive relationship with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and we will continue to work towards a peaceful resolution that takes us to a sustainable two-state solution. That is our long-standing position, and we continue to work towards it.

[Mr Betts [V]]

I am pleased to hear the Minister condemn any proposed annexation of territories in the west bank by the Israeli Government. Will he go further and accept that such an annexation would render any future Palestinian state unviable, would destroy its geographical integrity, and as such would render a two-state solution obsolete? Is it not absolutely essential that the Government act now with others to stop the Israelis annexing territory in the way that they currently intend?

[James Cleverly]

As I said, our long-standing position is that we do not support the annexation of parts of the west bank, as doing so could make a sustainable two-state solution harder. We support actions by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority that take us closer to a sustainable two-state solution, and we express our concerns about anything that might put that at risk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

It is good to hear from my hon. Friend quite how enterprising his county is. I reassure him that work coaches provide additional support to allow those who want to become self-employed to do so via the new enterprise allowance, which provides mentoring support and additional financial support. We announced in the last Budget a one-year grace period from the minimum income floor for claimants joining universal credit with an existing business. All these efforts try to make sure that his constituents, and other people throughout the country, are able to set up their businesses and work self-employed and get access to universal credit.

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

I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the comments made by the Children’s Commissioner based on research carried out by Policy in Practice. The Commissioners said that the number of children in families running a monthly deficit is expected to double in some areas as a result of the introduction of universal credit. Does she accept that this is completely disgraceful, and what is she going to do about it?

[Amber Rudd]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we care enormously about ensuring that there are fewer children in poverty than before. There are fewer children in poverty and fewer families in poverty since 2010. As we know, the best way to help people out of poverty is to ensure that families have work. I am ambitious to ensure that people in low-paid work can get into higher-paid work, which is why I made the announcements last week, ensuring that work coaches can give additional support.

Devolution of Welfare

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Seven Members wish to speak, so that is about five minutes each. That is guidance, not an absolute rigid time limit, but please stick to it, otherwise colleagues will not get their fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Gaffney]

That is indeed something that the Scottish Government could do. They want to be the Scottish power. They talk down here about “owning Scotland”. Well, start owning Scotland and start making changes to help people—our constituents.

The SNP has voted against topping up child benefit by £5 a week and against reverting to uprating carer’s allowance by RPI, and failed to mitigate the two-child limit. In the Scottish Parliament, Labour has already secured legal guarantees that the devolved social security system will have automatic split payments for universal credit and a ban on private sector involvement in assessments. We have committed to using the full powers available to take action, such as topping up child benefit, mitigating the two-child limit and bringing forward the income supplement that families across Scotland so desperately need. While I welcome the devolution of welfare, there is little point if the Scottish Government are not prepared to use their powers. That is why a Scottish Labour Government, committed to using those powers, are so desperately needed. If we are to tackle the crisis of poverty, make Scotland Labour.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I am going to start the winding up speeches at 10.28 am.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate and to be the first woman called. Although we have had some interesting perspectives from men, it is important to note that welfare affects women disproportionately. We have women who are still mainly carers, women in low-paid jobs, who will often be working all the hours they can get while also caring for their children or perhaps elderly relatives, and also women affected by Government pension decisions, which have again been squabbled over. It is women who are affected by many of these policies, so I am glad to be able to speak.

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate. It is encouraging to see many of his colleagues here. However, when I listen to much of the arguments, I think about my constituents who come to my office every week, some of them in dire situations. They need support and advice, and often they need help. I think about one constituent, a young woman called Kelly, who is a fantastic woman. She is a working single mum in education who is currently on universal credit. She told me that she was once left with £6 in a month, which was supposed to support her and her young son. She was not sure why that had happened; it was not explained to her. She did not come to me and say, “Who should I point the finger at? Is this the Tories or the SNP? Which Government should I be angry at?” She just wanted it to be sorted out. She just wants a welfare system that works, so when I sit here and hear this blame game, it is very frustrating, because it is not really helping her.

We have heard a lot about the delay in devolving welfare powers that the Scottish Government have presided over. I will not go into that, because it has been well covered, but we have also heard about some of the changes that are not actually changes. We hear that the SNP wants more powers, but what is the point if it will not use them to improve things?

The recent consultation on disability assistance in Scotland and the position papers published just last month showed that the Scottish Government’s plan is to replicate much of the existing Tory-designed benefit system. Given that we hear criticisms of that system from SNP spokespeople, why do they want to keep much of the same? Severe disablement allowance is being devolved in name only and then outsourced back to the DWP, which is mind boggling.

I always call for more working together, and there has been some on this issue; however, I fear it has not been very positive. As some of my Labour colleagues mentioned, the SNP and the Tories have worked together in the Scottish Parliament to vote down a policy that would have supported 4,000 families and lifted 5,000 children out of poverty, yet cost the Scottish Government only 0.2% of their budget. There has to be a better way.

Labour has been leading the fight to improve social security for people in Scotland. For example, Scottish Labour pushed the Scottish Government to accept automatic split payments of universal credit—something that the SNP has now embraced and often takes credit for, despite voting against the initial move to amend the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 at stage 2, voting with the Tories. It remains unclear how split payments will be administered in Scotland. Will the Minister update us on that? What is the current timetable for implementing them in Scotland, and have the Scottish Government proposed a split formula?

The Minister and the SNP spokespeople in Westminster and in the Scottish Government need to work together to find a genuine way forward. I want to see less blame and more action to deliver for Kelly, my constituent, and the people who come to my office in need of help and a better system, because there is a better way.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We move on to the Front Benchers, who will each have 10 minutes. That will leave a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up. I call Neil Gray for the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

I am concluding.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk also forgot to mention the catastrophic introduction of universal credit and PIP, which has literally ruined lives. He calls a debate to attack a responsible Government making responsible progress to deliver a fairer social security system, but ignores the tragedy of his own party’s disgusting attack on low-income families. He ignores disabled people having their Motability cars removed. He ignores people on universal credit left in poverty. He ignores a freeze on benefits that is predicted to plunge 400,000 more children into poverty. So forgive me, Mr Betts, but the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman or any other Tory party member preaching about how to deliver a social security system.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call Mike Amesbury for the Opposition. [Interruption.] Order. Calm down a bit, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because time is short.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) criticised the Government’s delivery of universal credit. I believe it is working, and we have put in an extra £6 billion to support the most vulnerable in the past two Budgets, which unfortunately he has not been able to support in votes. I point him to the summary of a Public Accounts Committee report from 2005 on tax credits, which says:

“In April 2004, the Committee reported on the severe problems following the introduction of the New Tax Credits, which meant that several hundred thousand claimants were not paid on time.”

I gently point out that we all want to get the system right, and I am not sure that constantly criticising is the best way forward.

As colleagues have noted, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People recently announced the Scottish Government’s delivery timetable for their replacements to the current disability, carer’s and industrial injuries benefits, as well as replacements for winter fuel and cold weather payments. The timetable proposes that the Scottish Government will progressively take over responsibility for delivery from April next year, with the final cases being transferred by 2024. That reflects the pace that the Scottish Government believe that they can commit to and is achievable.

On timing, it will be for the Scottish Government to keep it under review. The Scottish Government’s plans involve considerable work for DWP in both supporting them to achieve their ambition and, as necessary, continuing to deliver benefits on their behalf. We share the Scottish Government’s commitment to a safe and secure transfer, and our priority is as seamless a transfer as possible from the person receiving the benefit’s point of view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised a number of issues in his remarks. He spoke of his concerns about the Scottish Government’s delivery plans, the continuity of provision for his constituents and the cost to the public purse from the DWP continuing to deliver devolved benefits on behalf of the Scottish Government. We will, of course, continue to work with the Scottish Government, and costs arising from the DWP’s delivery of services on behalf of the Scottish Government will be reimbursed by the Scottish Government.

Many other points were raised, and if colleagues want to write to me I will be happy to respond to them. A number of colleagues mentioned WASPI. It is for the Scottish Government to determine how to use their powers to make further payments, including to fix issues for those individuals.

The devolution of welfare powers represents a significant constitutional change that will require substantial work by both Governments to ensure that the people of Scotland are well served. We are committed to working constructively with the Scottish Government. I look forward to the future and seeing the Scottish Government successfully delivering their new social security benefits for the people of Scotland.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister and other colleagues for keeping within the time limit. John Lamont has a minute to wind up.

Universal Credit

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Again, I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with him and his jobcentre staff to make sure that he gets the assurances that he wants.

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

The Minister failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), so I will ask it again. When universal credit is rolled out in Sheffield next month, will he guarantee that none of my constituents will be worse off?

[Alok Sharma]

I repeat my previous answer: it depends on people’s individual circumstances. This new benefit system is ultimately about making sure that we help people into work. I have to say that, under the last Labour Government, many people were trapped on benefits, but that is changing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

It is typical of my hon. Friend that she has the welfare of her most vulnerable constituents at the forefront of her mind. I can confirm that the current proposal on which we have just consulted is that the section 31 grant paid to local authorities for provision of refuges and other short-term supported housing will be ring-fenced.

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

The Government’s proposals are an improvement on their initial proposals, but one element has brought criticism from virtually all providers, and that is with regard to short-term supported housing. My Select Committee has recommended that for emergency very short-term accommodation of around 12 weeks, there should be a ring-fenced grant to local authorities. The Government have changed the definition of short term from 12 weeks to two years, which all providers have condemned. Will the Government think again and bring accommodation lasting two years into the welfare system?

[Kit Malthouse]

We are in receipt of a significant number of responses to the consultation, which only closed a couple of weeks ago, and we will consider those over the months to come. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those concerns with his constituents if they wish to do so.

PIP Back Payments

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that constituency case and I would be delighted to meet him to review it.

I would sound a word of caution. I have met many people who would be described as having severe mental health problems, who play a really full part in their community and also work. We have put a lot of money into supporting innovative programmes that enable people with mental health problems to manage those conditions, so that they can stay in work. I have met people who have told me that the work we are doing has literally saved their lives. I have met consultants who have told me that they would never have believed that people with such severe mental health conditions could be so well supported to play their full part in society, including work. Each person is unique and each person’s needs must be assessed individually.

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

As part of this review, will the Government be looking at people who currently have one component of PIP, to see whether they might be entitled to both components, and will they be looking at people on the lower rate of PIP, to see whether they might be entitled to the higher rate?

[Sarah Newton]

As I say, we will be ensuring that we fully implement the findings of the appeal, and we will be doing that by working very carefully with our stakeholders to make sure that we get this right. We will be reviewing all 1.6 million PIP claimants.

Supported Housing

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for their work in chairing the joint inquiry, which produced an excellent report that was agreed unanimously by both the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee. It is a tribute to the strength of the Select Committee system that the joint inquiry listened to the evidence, which overwhelmingly said that the Government had got themselves into the wrong place on this issue.

The local housing allowance has no connection whatsoever with the costs of supported housing. By starting from the assumption that the two are connected, the Government could not come up with a system that worked. I am pleased that they have accepted that fundamental point today and agreed that the local housing allowance will play no part when they develop a new system to help supported housing. Having reached that position, away from the local housing allowance, the Government can get themselves to the point where they can develop a sensible system for the future. We will hear next Tuesday whether they will go on to develop such a sensible system, when they respond to the joint Select Committee report, but at least we are in a better place. I thank the Government for at least listening to that fundamental recommendation from the joint report.

We are currently waiting for the Government’s detailed response, but as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) just explained, Lord Best has worked with five housing associations and come forward with a considered piece of work that shows that a discrete and particular allowance for supported housing can be developed at no extra cost. Such an allowance should take into account the fact that the regional variations in the costs of providing supported housing throughout the country are actually very small. If we develop a system with small regional variations that is more related to the actual costs of supported housing, with relatively small top-ups, we can provide a much greater degree of certainty for supported housing providers.

One of the problems with the LHA system was that the massive differences in LHA rates throughout the country meant that we needed significant top-ups, which varied up and down the country. That introduced great uncertainty to the system. Suppliers have not been sure whether the top-ups would be forthcoming in future years, so the housing providers have not been able to go to their investors and say with certainty what their future funding and financial arrangements are. That was a problem, but hopefully we have got away from it. The scheme that was put forward in principle by the National Housing Federation and worked on by the five housing associations and Lord Best shows that it can be done in a way that does not cost any more but results in a much more sensible and considered system. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and come forward with something similar when they respond next Tuesday. We look forward to the details of that response.

It is important that, next week, the Government give us a timeframe, because 85% of schemes in the pipeline have been put on hold. There have been doubts about the continuation of some existing schemes, but, certainly, a big hold has been put on other schemes in the pipeline. Those are schemes that are badly needed by people for a whole range of reasons. Some people struggling in their own homes, for example, could be helped to live in much better circumstances. Let us have a timeframe for implementation.

We must also recognise that it is not just what we think about the proposals, but what the local authorities think as they will have to implement the costs and provide the grants. Most importantly, it is also what the providers—housing associations and others—think about them. After next Tuesday, will they say, “We now feel that we can go forward with this investment with some degree of certainty?” Will the Government take on board the recommendations of the joint Select Committee to bring forward these proposals not merely with a timeframe, but in a considered way to allow organisations to adapt to the changes—adapt in a way that means that these developments will proceed in the future in the way that we all hope.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, alongside that geographical flexibility, it is also important that faith-based organisations, such as Emmaus and the Salvation Army, have flexibility about the model that they provide—very often they work alongside Shelter—so that the new system can accommodate a variety of approaches?

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, makes a very good point. Supported housing is often a global term used to describe a very wide variety of provisions from different providers and different suppliers. When we have a grant system that covers all such provision, it is important that it also covers the differences, and allows for those differences to be reflected in the way that the provision is made. When we get that recommendation from the Government next week, in response to the joint Select Committee report, it is important that it is flexible enough to take on board all those different circumstances. That is what I will be looking for. We will also be looking not just at the Government’s response, but at the response of housing associations and other providers as to how they view the Government’s proposals in terms of what they will enable them to do in the future.

I recognise that others wish to speak, so let me say to the Minister that I will wait for the recommendations next week before responding further. Obviously, that is the appropriate thing to do. However, it is clear that while the Minister’s response will be made directly to the two Select Committees—that is the way the Government will respond to our report—there clearly is a wider interest in the matter across the House among Members who do not necessarily belong to the two Select Committees. I am very happy to work with the Minister—I am sure that the same is true for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—to find a way in which these proposals can be shared and considered by all Members of the House. I hope that he will take on board that offer, because it is important that there is a wider debate on this as there is such widespread interest in it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The purpose of the limit on support through universal credit or tax credits to the first two children, in the case of new claims and new births, is to reduce our welfare spending and to target it in a particular way—[Interruption.] In some 85% of families that include children, there are one or two children. When it came to determining where necessary reductions must be made, this was the correct way of doing that.

The hon. Lady talks about rising inequality. I simply mention to her that inequality is down, and that household incomes are at a record level.

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

8. What assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the proposed closure of Jobcentre Plus offices on claimants’ travel times and costs.

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

The Department has sought to maintain the services that it offers claimants while minimising the impact on claimants as far as possible. These proposals may mean slightly longer and slightly shorter journeys for some individual claimants, and that has been taken into account in the setting of the criteria.

[Mr Betts]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the campaign that she has run with the Public and Commercial Services Union and local residents to keep open the Eastern Avenue jobcentre, which serves both our constituencies. Will the Minister confirm that the only reason for closing Eastern Avenue is to save money, and that if it closes, extra capacity will be needed at Cavendish Court and Woodhouse jobcentres? In the light of that need for extra capacity, will he produce figures showing whether there will actually be any net saving as a result of the closure of Eastern Avenue?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very cheeky to ask three questions even when asked with the skill and confidence of the Chair of the Select Committee.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about care leavers. Absolutely, they are exempt from this policy.

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

One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents”.

Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He and I have exchanged correspondence on this—he may not yet have received a letter from me offering a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment. We absolutely want to work through any teething issues with local councils.

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

T2. The Motor Neurone Disease Association and Parkinson’s UK have welcomed Government proposals to scrap reassessment of ESA for people with severe lifelong conditions. The Secretary of State has described that reassessment as pointless, bureaucratic nonsense. Will the Government therefore now agree also to scrap reassessments in the same circumstances for people with lifelong conditions for PIP and continuing healthcare?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

PIP is slightly different. For example, someone’s needs might increase and they need a reassessment to receive more support under PIP. The Green Paper affords us the opportunity to look at all these things together. I think there are opportunities for PIP perhaps to have a lighter assessment, but we need to get the whole process right.