Remploy

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed, and I keep abreast of the figures on a weekly basis. That figure of 400 who have got a job did not include people who were on fewer than 16 hours, so more than that number are in work on fewer hours.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the specialist disability employment budget has been protected in the latest spending round? Consequently, it is all the more important that this money is used to help as many disabled people as possible back into work, as opposed to spending such a large sum on a small number of loss-making factories.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Yes, that budget was protected in the spending review and we have committed to £350 million to support disabled people into work. That money has got to be best spent on people—not on failing businesses—to support them into work.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reality is that most people who come here come here to work. They come here because they think the job prospects are greater; that is the real attraction. The truth is that, in the last 10 years, we simply did not know what was happening because the last Government refused to collect figures on those from other countries who were claiming benefit. We were therefore unable to answer that question. The first thing we did was to change that, and we now collect the data. We are now beginning to know what the facts are.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

For the sake of taxpayers in my constituency, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State succeeds in his negotiations to redefine the eligibility rules, but does he agree that if for some reason he inexplicably fails it will only encourage more people to vote to leave the European Union when we have the in/out referendum?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The reality is that it is issues such as this that drive people away from the concept of the success of the European Union, if that is what they had believed. The more the Commission decides to interfere in areas such as this, the more damage it does to those who are pro-European. I personally have been quite sceptical about the process for a considerable period, but even I can recognise that this damages the concept of a European Union that works for all its members and that is about trade and co-operation and ensuring that the people who live in the European Union get benefits according to what they have contributed.

Remploy

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that I made a written statement to the House. I have met many Members, trade unions and ex-members of Remploy to figure out the best way forward. I had one-on-one meetings because, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, each of the factories is significantly different, with different commercial processes and outcomes. It makes far more sense to deal with this on an individual basis so that we can put the personalised support in place.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the policy is all about helping disabled people into mainstream employment and not at all about cutting the budget for disabled employment support, which despite the difficult economic circumstances is being protected?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely what the Sayce review recommended—that we get as many people as possible into mainstream work. There were 2,200 disabled people working at the Remploy factories, and in the last two years alone Remploy Employment Services has put 50,000 similar people into mainstream work.

Welfare Reform Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 12 months is simply not long enough for a very large number of cancer patients—or other patients, in fact—to get back to work.

Lords amendment 18 was moved in the other place by Lord Patel, the Cross-Bench peer who was formerly president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. He quoted a man with renal cancer who had had a kidney removed and who started claiming ESA in March last year. His partner earns £160 per week, but if the Government win, that man will lose all his contributory benefit in April. He says:

“We have used up virtually all our savings already. I have worked all my life and paid into the system but this doesn't seem to mean anything”.

Is that really how the Government want their system to work? Of course, it is not just cancer patients who will be affected.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that it is completely illogical to single out cancer as a separate disease when, in fact, there are many illnesses and conditions that may result in someone being unfit for work and when, under these provisions, they would be provided for by being put in the support group?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—indeed, I am just going on to make that very point. It is not just cancer patients who will be affected; there are many other people in exactly the same position. That is why we have argued for a two-year limit instead of a one-year limit, because with a two-year limit there is a chance for people to get back into work. The National Aids Trust makes the point:

“Many people living with HIV who are found eligible will face significant barriers to work that cannot be overcome within 12 months.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister talks about people getting £1 million, but people who have £16,000 will get absolutely nothing. That is the system that he is putting in place, and I am not surprised that he is ashamed of it.

[Mr Nuttall]

As a matter of general principle, does the shadow Minister agree that there has to be a rule about the amount of capital that people hold? Should not a cut-off apply? It was the Labour Government’s rule: there has to be a cut-off.

[Stephen Timms]

We are being taken into a slightly broader argument, but I will answer the point directly. The capital limit has always been a feature of means-tested out-of-work benefits. It was never a feature of the tax credit system because the previous Government wanted to encourage people in work to save. That incentive to save is being destroyed by the application of this capital limit—exactly the same capital limit—in future to people in work as well as out of work. That is another terrible feature of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few Members wish to speak, so may I ask for short speeches? That will mean that we can get everybody in and all the views will be on the record.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), although I do not agree with him on many occasions. I do not agree with him today either, except on one thing—the Government will get this measure through today, and that is because they are doing absolutely the right thing. One thing that I heard time and again from my constituents in the last election campaign was that they were sick and tired of the number of people taking a lifestyle choice to live a life on benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has mentioned.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Labour party, which now has this synthetic anger about the proposals for means-testing, was the party that when in government—the hon. Member for Walsall North himself said that he supported them more often than not—extended means-testing more than any other Government in history?

[Mr Nuttall]

Absolutely. We have heard a lot about this means-testing this afternoon. We have heard that the system is insurance-based, which it is, but with any insurance policy there are terms and conditions. In this case, the means test is just shorthand for the terms and conditions of the policy.

[Sheila Gilmore]

What I find so hard to understand in the argument the hon. Gentleman is presenting is that the very people he might be condemning—people who have not worked and have not had savings—will continue to get benefit. The people who are being damaged by this policy are those who have saved, who are working and who have tried hard.

[Mr Nuttall]

We must have rules of policy in an insurance system. The Labour party accepted that when it was in government and the hard-working families in my constituency, many of whom have no savings at all, or less than £1,000 in savings, will ask why their taxes should go towards paying benefits to people who have far more in savings than they have. That is a perfectly logical and sensible view.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If people thought about this they would realise that if they had been saving and making that effort—and we are not necessarily talking about huge amounts because the measures would start to affect people to some degree at £6,000—they would find the measures unfair.

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not agree. We have to ask why people save. They save for a rainy day. They save in case they lose their job or have an illness. The changes will still mean that the most needy in our society will be looked after. There will still be a safety net that will help those who most need help in our society.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman be advising his constituents to take out private insurance to protect against unemployment or ill health? After all, he is supporting the limiting of the state’s role in that respect.

[Mr Nuttall]

Some constituents might choose to do that, but that is a matter for them. I am not going to recommend whether that is the right or wrong thing to do because it is a decision they have to take for themselves. It is about personal responsibility. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that at a time when the welfare bill is spiralling out of control and this country has run out of money—we are essentially bankrupt; we are having to borrow money every single day to pay our way—it is essential that we bring the welfare benefits bill under control. It is only by taking tough decisions that that will ever be done.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Like me, my hon. Friend might not be surprised that the Opposition are ignoring the effect of universal credit. Does he accept that many of the families in the margins who are affected badly by means-testing will benefit from universal credit?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With universal credit, we seek to sweep away some of the complexities of the welfare system that inevitably lead to confusion and the possibility for people to make errors—sometimes deliberately.

I am very conscious that many other speakers want to get in and I am sure that we want to hear the Minister’s reply. Let me say again that I want to speak up for the hard-working families in my constituency and the vast number of my constituents who think the Government are doing absolutely the right thing on welfare. I urge everyone to back these moves today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

What I am saying is that in my constituency I encounter people who have no spare room but want one, not people who have a spare room and want to give it up. The situation may be different in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Let me now move on the point that I really want to make, which relates to the Lords amendment dealing with Child Support Agency charges. I am reluctant to discuss the Child Support Agency, as I was the hapless Secretary of State who had to introduce it after it was legislated for by my predecessor. Discretion being the better part of valour, I always delegated the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whose emollient manner proved the text in Proverbs that a soft answer turneth away wrath. I kept as distant from it as I could.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

I am also reluctant to take issue with the Lords unnecessarily. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I found that from time to time the Lords would propose amendments to legislation that I had introduced. At first I was shocked that anyone could think that my legislation could be improved in any way, but when I listened to what was said by the Lords in general and the bishops in particular, I usually found that it contained an element of truth. There was something worth listening to, even if I could not take on board everything that they proposed. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to them, has modified the charging structure, and has taken their points on board. However, she is probably right not to adopt the whole principle of what the other place suggests.

I am not entirely persuaded of the Lords’ case, because I think that it is right in principle to charge for a costly service, and it is right that the people who principally benefit from it should pay an element of it in the form of a charge, rather than our leaving the entire cost to the other party or the taxpayer. It is right in principle, too, that wherever possible we encourage voluntary agreements, rather than reliance on state-funded bureaucracy, because voluntary agreements, where possible, are better, and because that reduces the load on an over-extended bureaucracy that has never been able to cope with the load that it has; it is better that it focuses on the most obdurate cases.

It is right in principle to charge both parents, as it is not possible, even though their lordships’ amendment implies that it is, to distinguish who is the goody and who the baddy.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your post, and I am grateful to you for calling me to make my first speech to the House. I also warmly congratulate all Members, on both sides of the House, who have made their maiden speeches today on enlightening us about the many delights of their constituencies.

I am greatly honoured and humbled that the voters of Bury North have placed their trust and confidence in me to represent them. It is a great privilege. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), I first stood for Parliament in 1997, and I had to stand four times before being elected, which is testament to the fact that perseverance pays off. My predecessor as MP for Bury North was Mr David Chaytor, who while holding very different political views from my own, always treated me with the greatest courtesy and respect. I am sure that my constituents whom he helped during the 13 years he represented the constituency would want me to thank him publicly for the work he did on their behalf. Mr Chaytor made frequent contributions in the House, particularly on education and energy.

Prior to Mr Chaytor, Bury North constituency was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He is still fondly remembered in Bury from the 14 years he represented the constituency, and I congratulate him on his ministerial promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Bury North constituency has changed little geographically since the days when it was represented by him. The latest boundary review transferred voters in three of the four polling districts in the redrawn Unsworth ward from Bury North into Bury South. The name “Bury North” reflects the fact that the constituency covers the northern part of the borough of Bury, which was formed in the 1974 local government reorganisation, when the six townships of Prestwich, Whitefield, Radcliffe, Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington were combined to form a single metropolitan district within the Greater Manchester conurbation. It is the last three of those—Bury, Tottington and Ramsbottom—that together now comprise the current constituency of Bury North. It is, if I may say so, archetypal Lancashire territory, where the people have a strong sense of local pride, identity and community.

Bury grew quickly during the industrial revolution, on the strength of its textile and paper industries. Although those industries are now largely absent from 21st century Bury, there is much to commend it to would-be visitors. Indeed, if there are any hon. Members who have not yet booked their summer holidays, may I suggest that they need look no further than Bury? The list of attractions is wide and varied, starting with the world-famous Bury markets, where people have the chance to purchase the local delicacy, Bury black pudding. Then there is the regimental museum of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the east Lancashire railway and the wild splendour of the moors of east Lancashire, along with the Peel tower and the Peel statue, which stands in the square in front of the great parish church, commemorating one of Bury’s most famous sons, Sir Robert Peel.

Much has been said of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made to the Conservative party, particularly with regard to increasing the number of women and the number of Members from an ethnic minority background in the parliamentary party. However, surely none of those changes is as noteworthy or striking as the fact that I, as a Yorkshireman from a working-class background, was selected to fight a seat in Lancashire. Although I was born in Sheffield, in common with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I attended a comprehensive school in Rotherham. It must be something of a record, but this is the second time in less than half an hour that Rotherham has been mentioned, as it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). In those days, Rotherham was—and it probably still is—referred to as the “Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire”. [Hon. Members: “It still is.”] Indeed. I am sure that there was no attempt at political indoctrination, but if there was, it clearly failed.

Let me turn to the topic of today’s debate. I note that nowadays poverty comes in all sorts of technical categories. We have “severe” poverty, “relative” poverty, “absolute” poverty and “persistent” poverty, but it seems to me that, with our welfare system and the vast amounts that we spend on welfare in Britain today, there is no reason why any of our fellow citizens should be categorised as living in poverty. It is incumbent on us all to look at how we are spending our welfare budget. It is the poverty of aspiration and ambition, which is so pervasive and widespread among many in the lower socio-economic groups, that is the real problem. In that regard, I hope that perhaps my achievements can be an inspiration to others.

Finally, let me say that I intend to be a strong and independent advocate for my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington, speaking up for them with straightforward common sense. I believe in small government, freedom for the individual, less bureaucracy and red tape, an end to political correctness and restoring the full sovereignty of this Parliament, free from control by the European Union. It is for those causes that I will be fighting during my time in this House.