Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on measures to reduce benefit tourism.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

My Ministers, officials, and I are in regular dialogue with the European Commission and other member states about the co-ordination and reform of social security. The most recent meeting was at the October Employment and Social Policy Council.

[Mr Ruffley]

The think-tank Open Europe today proposed that EU migrants’ eligibility for in-work benefits and out-of-work benefits be restricted for the first three years. Are my right hon. Friend’s EU counterparts in northern Europe sympathetic to such views?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Although I have not read the report, Open Europe has stated what we are already discussing with Ministers of many of the other countries concerned. They are all pretty much in agreement that the present system does not give them enough leeway, and there is a general sense that they want people to contribute more before they receive benefits. That is very much the tenor of the discussion, so what the think-tank writes is pretty much what I think is going to happen in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, in exceptional cases, housing benefit can be topped up, but she will also know that the same issue could arise under the shared accommodation rate for under-25s. However, if two single people choose accommodation together, the combined total of their shared accommodation rates is larger than one family’s standard rate for a two-bedroom flat, so two people coming together can rent a larger property than a family requiring two bedrooms.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to introduce stricter criteria on eligibility benefit for applications from foreign workers.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Our reforms have ended a situation in which migrant workers had indefinite access to jobseeking benefits, which we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Since April, we have banned access to housing benefit. From July, migrant workers will have their claims to jobseeker’s allowance stopped if they have claimed for six months and cannot show that they have found employment. I intend to tighten this up further still.

[Mr Ruffley]

I am grateful for that reply. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the tougher habitual residence test and the new minimum earnings guarantee. Has he received support from European partners for his tougher approach to curb benefit tourism, and are they taking further steps to move the approach forward?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am in discussions with colleagues from various countries in the European Union. Many of them, including the Dutch and the Germans, have made it clear that they essentially support our direction of travel and that some kind of change must be made to the regulations. The German Chancellor made Germany’s position clear, saying that the EU is “not a social union” and there cannot be de facto immigration into other EU social systems.

amendment of the law

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on an intellectually bold and intellectually coherent Budget that will do much to bolster the growing confidence in the British economy. We are already seeing a recovery that is not, contrary to ill-informed observers, a credit-fuelled recovery. The growth we are seeing is to do with higher employment levels. The amount of unsecured lending—credit card borrowing—is remarkably modest and small; it does not account for the recovery we are seeing. Furthermore, the gross household debt to income ratio was 170% in the credit-fuelled days of the previous Parliament. It has fallen to 140% this year.

What the Chancellor reminded us of is that there are no final victories when it comes to economic management, and he reminded us of five things that have to happen if this recovery is to be sustainable. First, the measures to improve exports—so that we have the most competitive export finance regime in western Europe—will help our net trade position. Our net trade position is frankly not good enough: 5% of GDP is the level of the deficit on our current account.

Secondly, the Chancellor reminded us that as a country we have in recent years not been saving enough, so I particularly welcome the boldness in abolishing the 10p savings rate and the 55% punitive rate of tax on draw-downs from pension pots. It will now only be at an individual’s marginal rate. He has also abolished the compulsory need to annuitise. All those things will improve the incentives to save.

Thirdly, the Chancellor said that we have not been investing enough as a nation. I think that the single most important change in the Budget for manufacturers and exporters—those in the real economy—will be the increase in capital allowance from £150,000 a year to £500,000 a year. I have only one gripe about that for Government Front Benchers: it is another temporary increase. Over the years, under successive Chancellors, capital allowances have been chopped and changed, abolished, taken down to very low levels and then whacked up again. What we have in this Budget is an extension of the capital allowance until the end of 2015. Many of us would like to ask, on behalf of those in the real economy, for a little more consistency when such measures are announced.

Fourthly, we all know that our productivity is 20% lower than the G7 average, as measured by total output hours, and we have seen lots of work over the past three years on apprenticeships, skills and training.

The fifth issue dwarfs all the others, and without it British families will have no security whatever in their economic lives. It is deficit reduction. The key failure of this country and its people, and especially its Government, over many years has been the failure to live within our means. The cyclically adjusted primary deficit is going to be cut by 10 percentage points of GDP, which is a colossal fiscal contraction. Half of that is happening in this Parliament, and the other half will happen in the next Parliament. Four fifths of the 5% tightening in this Parliament occurred in the first two years, so we are now in conditions of relatively less tightening. But, my word, it will really pick up. We will have to find another 5% between 2015-16 and 2018-19.

I will point to two charts in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report that accompanied the Budget. Chart 3.39 shows that general Government consumption, excluding welfare, will fall from 21.8% of nominal GDP this year to 16.1% in 2018-19. That statistic is significant because it is the lowest figure for Government general consumption since 1948. It is a fiscal squeeze on steroids. It is serious. It will have to be delivered if we are to return to surplus at the end of the next Parliament, as the Chancellor so rightly points out.

Chart 4.4 shows us that if we keep the protected budgets, particularly that of health, we will see massive further squeezes in departmental spending, much tougher than those we have already experienced. The departmental expenditure limit figures show that health alone will account for 45% of departmental spending in the next Parliament, with massive cuts elsewhere. Only the Conservatives can guarantee that fiscal austerity.

Universal Credit

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

To deal with the first part of what the hon. Lady said, the reason we are proceeding like this—testing, learning and then implementing—is to ensure that nobody so far has been damaged at all by the changes brought in under universal credit. I repeat again that I learned my lesson from the last Government, who rolled out tax credits in a rush, all at once. The system crashed, £5 billion was lost and 400,000 people were damaged. The then Prime Minister, Mr Blair, had to go out and apologise publicly for the mess they had got in. I am saying today that we will roll this out and 6.5 million people will be on the system by 2017.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has the wholehearted support of those on the Government Benches because his reforms are the most beneficial reforms to the welfare system since its inception. The Labour party in government, across the whole of their Departments in 13 years, blew £25 billion on failed IT systems. Does not history therefore suggest that the best way to proceed with IT projects of the important kind that my right hon. Friend is engaged with is to do it patiently and gradually, and not to rush our fences?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is right. The way we have chosen to do this is to ensure that we test, learn and implement as we go along. This is exactly how we are rolling out the other programmes of change on disability living allowance and the personal independence payment, on the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, and on the cap, all of which are now bringing benefits to many people throughout the country. The previous Government wasted £13 billion on the NHS computer system and £500 million on the Child Support Agency mess, including £120 million on the rescue scheme which was later scrapped. The benefits processing replacement programme, which some of those on the Opposition Benches were responsible for, was axed after £140 million of waste.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am always very willing to discuss issues relating to the living wage with the hon. Lady or with anyone else. However, I hope that when the hon. Lady talks to her constituents she is honest enough to tell them that the reason they find themselves in so much difficulty is that the last Government made such a mess of the economy, and caused so many people to collapse into low incomes and very poor jobs. It was the Labour party that caused that. We are changing it, and restoring the previous position.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The European Commission said this morning that more than 600,000 EU migrants live in this country without working. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could cap the benefits paid to those individuals by introducing a more stringent residence requirement, and by insisting that they have a longer social security contribution record?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have not read the report in any detail, but I do know that the 600,000 figure does not necessarily refer to people of working age who could be working. There is a big question mark over the number of people to whom it relates. I do not want to find myself in the middle of a debate between some of the media and the European Union, so let me simply say that our own assessment—our habitual residency test—currently prevents people who could be working and not on benefits from claiming those benefits. It is the Commission that is trying to get us to change that, and I am utterly refusing to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

Just to be clear, when we made reductions in housing benefit for 2012-13 we were told that the support was not enough, but the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, Edinburgh, returned to us £162,000 of help that it could not spend. We have increased the support to Edinburgh council this year compared with last year.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Benefit tourism can be deterred if greater conditionality is introduced into the UK benefit system. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether or not our European partners will allow us to do that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe they will. I think that a large number of countries in the European Union are concerned that, while they want people to travel for work—as do we—through free movement, they do not want people to pick and choose which benefit system they want to be a part of when they are out of work. We have had recent conversations with Germans and others, and we are all moving together towards an eventual proposal to get the European Commission to work with us to change this.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My view is that that is not the case. It is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will have to raise it with him, but I am not aware of any such discussions or any such facts being placed in front of me. I would certainly not be keen for that to happen, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware—as will the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, whose track record on this is arguably unimpeachable—we have a big problem and we have to face it, not because we are scaring people, but because we have to deal with it.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s toughening up. I certainly trust him to fight in a tough and effective way in Brussels, but does he understand that many of our constituents find it grotesquely offensive that Brussels officials are telling this Parliament who it can and cannot pay benefits to? In that spirit, will he confirm that this is an area of EU competence that this Government will ask to opt out of?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is invidious that areas that I have always believed were outwith the Commission’s normal competences are being sucked in by using other things—this is to do with the free movement. More could have been done and the issue should have been raised at a much higher level. It is quite good that other nations—mostly northern European nations, but also Spain—are now deeply concerned about the ratchet process. We are meeting them and there are the beginnings of a real resistance to it.

On what will happen in any negotiation, I am clearly not in a position to commit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on whatever may happen in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the system set up by the previous Labour Government set a prognosis time for an individual—an estimate of how long before they could return to work. It is that, rather than anything else, which guides the timetable for repeat assessments. I have taken steps to stretch that timetable post-appeal, but I do not want to leave people stranded on benefits for the rest of their lives if we can possibly help them find employment.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of the 1996 personal responsibility Act, passed by President Clinton, which limited an individual’s entitlement to out-of-work benefits to a period of five years over their lifetime, and which, according to American research, cut the welfare roll by 60%. Will he follow that model?

[Chris Grayling]

I studied that model carefully. One reason why we have adopted various programmes requiring people to undertake full-time work is to create a sense of urgency for them in finding employment. I am not convinced, however, that government is good enough at managing data to manage, for long periods—many decades—at a time, the kind of systems set up in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Löfstedt report on health and safety regulation.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

8. What progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the Löfstedt report on health and safety regulation.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

As my hon. Friends will recall, the Löfstedt review was published last November. We have already made good progress on implementing the report’s key recommendations. Consultation on the repeal or revocation of 21 legislative measures is already under way by the Health and Safety Executive and the Government intend to scrap, consolidate or improve 84% of health and safety regulations, greatly reducing the burdens on business and creating a clearer regulatory framework. In addition, two independent challenge panels have been established, the first to consider complaints from businesses about decisions made by HSE or local authority inspectors. The second will consider problems arising from non-regulators, such as insurance companies, health and safety consultants and employers, and to assess whether those decisions are proportionate and appropriate or whether they are wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

What we are trying to do is to give people who believe that a decision that has been taken is wrong—such as a decision to cancel an event or to take some other step that will impact on their lives—a chance to go quickly to the HSE and ask whether it is based on a true interpretation. We will seek to give them a clear view within two days of whether the decision is appropriate, so that they can challenge it locally.

[Mr Ruffley]

EU directives accounted for 94% of the cost of health and safety rules between 1998 and 2009. What discussions has the Minister had in Brussels about this completely unacceptable state of affairs and will he make it clear to Brussels officials that British businesses want less, not more, Brussels interference in the British workplace?

[Chris Grayling]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The tide of bureaucracy we have seen in recent years has hindered business and affected employment. My view is that the EU should focus on measures that create jobs, rather than hindering the creation of jobs. That is of fundamental importance and I can assure him that I will fight that battle extremely vigorously in Brussels.

Pensions and Social Security

David Ruffley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am most grateful, although my initial oratory has already drawn one hon. Member into the Chamber. If I keep going for long enough, who knows? My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the coalition for finding the money to protect the most vulnerable households at a time of economic stringency. He can share in that credit.

On the principal order—the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012—despite that challenging economic landscape, the coalition is committed to protecting people who have worked hard all their lives, poorer pensioners, people who are not able to work through their disabilities, and people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs and are trying to find work. Those are important aims for uprating 2012, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his autumn statement on 29 November, Official Report, column 802.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Has the Minister had any representations regarding the apparent iniquity of uprating by CPI on the basis of one month’s figures—those for September?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right that when the uprating was considered, there was speculation that a different month, or a rolling average or something like that, might be used. It was decided to continue the practice of using the September CPI, but I would stress that that is not a one-month figure, but a figure published in one month about the past 12 months. Although as it happened 5.2% was the peak—I think I am right in saying that it was lower in the month before and the month after—each 12 months joins on to another 12 months, so in another year, the September figure could be the lowest. We took the view that that was the established practice, and that changing it could leave it open to manipulation. Although in a particular year it can stand out, when we take one year with the next, it will sometimes be lower and sometimes higher.

As hon. Members know, using the CPI measure of inflation was an important part of this Government’s plans for uprating pensions and benefits. I am delighted that we will have a debate on that very subject next Thursday afternoon—I look forward to being here at the same time and the same place next week. In addition to being the headline measure of inflation in the UK and the internationally recognised target measure of inflation used by the Bank of England, we believe the CPI is a superior measure of inflation when it comes to uprating benefits and pensions, first because the CPI basket of goods is a better match for the spending patterns of pensioners, and secondly because it takes better account of how households respond to price changes.

Last year, the High Court upheld the Government’s decision that the CPI can be used for pensions and benefits uprating and we have robustly defended our case in the Court of Appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I wish to say something about the public spending implications of using the September 2011 CPI figure for uprating and about the fairness of doing so. Using that September figure for the following April-to-April fiscal year means that it will be 18 months out of date by the end of 2012-13. If the Government had not used the September figure and had instead used the six-month average to the end of 2011 of 4.7%, the Treasury would have been able to save a remarkable £780 million compared with the 5.2% uprating.

Alternatively, the Government could have decided to take an average figure from April 2011 to April 2012, using a forecast for the current quarter. Had they done so, the figure would have been not 5.2% or 4.7%, but 4.4%, which would have saved Her Majesty’s Treasury £1 billion from the uprating—and there is more. Let us just ask ourselves what this uprating is really about. It is done to compensate benefit recipients for the cost of living increases from April 2012 to April 2013—it is about the actual cost of living. The Bank of England forecast for what inflation will average during that period is 2.8%, rather than the 5.2% that we are being invited to sign up to. If that 2.8% figure were used, the welfare bill saving to Her Majesty’s Treasury would be more than £3 billion.

Times are tough and we need to look after the most vulnerable in society, but I am also a public spending hawk. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing very good work in setting out an austerity programme, but it is not nearly austere enough for me. The public spending implications of this uprating are terribly important, and I hope that the Minister will explain in a little more detail than he did in reply to my earlier intervention what the Government’s thinking was at the time of the very public discussion in September and October, in the run-up to the pre-Budget report, about what we should do about this September figure.

I repeat that that figure does not begin to reflect the actual cost of living for the 12 months from April 2012, which this uprating is meant to cover. The figure being used will be 18 months out of date by the end of that uprating year, which is about to commence. The forecast is for 2.8% and if we had followed that, rather than the 5.2% figure, £3 billion would go to Her Majesty’s Exchequer.

Now, for those who will say, “Ah—he wants to be beastly to pensioners,” I have that one covered, too. Pensioners, as distinct from non-pensioner benefit recipients, should have the benefit of the triple lock using not the September 2011 figure but that for the year before the uprating year—that is, from the fiscal year we are in now, from April 2011 to April 2012. As I said, that would be 4.4% rather than 5.2%. If we gave pensioners that benefit, as we would differentiate the uprating for pensioner and non-pensioner benefit recipients, non-pensioner recipients would get 2.8%. We could, nevertheless, save the Exchequer £1.7 billion. Using a more rational and economically literate uprating figure, rather than the figure from the September prior to the fiscal year that is being uprated, would mean that we could save the Treasury money.

Let me make one point about the idea of basing calculations on Bank of England inflation forecasts from April of this year to April 2013. I know that some people are very sceptical about Bank of England forecasts. At least one of them is present in the Chamber—or two including me—and that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is very distinguished and hugely learned. Even if one were to say that 2.8% for the fiscal year 2012-13 is a bit on the low side and that the Bank might be wrong, inflation is still very likely to fall to 3%. There are three reasons for that: first, the VAT increase is falling out of the calculation; secondly, the inflationary effects of the massive decline and depreciation in sterling are being unwound; and, thirdly, world commodity prices, particularly as regards energy products, fuel and so on, are coming down, too. So there are at least three reasons—probably more—for believing that the next 12 to 18 months will see a declining trajectory in price inflation.

Let me say a few words about the practicality of using forecasts as I have suggested. The flexibility that I am seeking as an alternative to sticking to a rigid September forecast for a full six months before the year of uprating begins can be seen in New Zealand, where they distinguish between pension benefits, which are not allowed to fall below 65% of average earnings in that year or rise above more than 72%, and non-pension benefits, where the Government have discretion. That would be much more sensible and the discretion could be used on the basis of the forecasts, which are more relevant and relate to the year in which one is trying to compensate benefit recipients rather than using an out-of-date September number.

There is a key point, which was raised in the press and media last autumn, about whether it can be right—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) touched on this—for non-pensioner benefit recipients who are receiving a 5.2% increase to receive it at a time when those who are working on very low incomes are not receiving any kind of uplift at all and have to cope with the ravages of the rising cost of living. We know that that is something that not only right-of-centre Conservative Members of Parliament like me will say. My point is not a million miles removed from the excellent Government policy of a benefit cap of £26,000 for any family that does not have anyone in their household in work. Why should people who do not work get a better deal than those who try to do work of some description, whether it is part time or otherwise?

I find it difficult to justify to my constituents how this Government have doggedly stuck to a September CPI uprating. The thrust of my remarks is based on the grounds of fairness to those who are working, poor and on low incomes and of affordability to Her Majesty’s Treasury at a time when we are trying to squeeze every possible pound of taxpayers’ money spent in the public interest to make it work more effectively and to get the deficit down. Some of the figures amount to billions—not just millions—and that money could be used to do good things. We could reduce the deficit faster than projected or target tax cuts. There is money to be squeezed out of the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions.

In that spirit of honest inquiry and with a desire to squeeze public spending harder and to see a better deal for those who are not benefit recipients but nevertheless work hard at the bottom end of the labour market so that they have justice, too, I believe that a 5.2% uprating sends entirely the wrong message. It also sends the wrong message to me as a believer in introducing serious incentives to work rather than incentives to receive benefits.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), I am extremely proud that despite the chronic economic challenges that we face, the Government have uprated by 5.2%. I am what is termed an orange book Liberal, so I am fairly hawkish on the budget, but clearly not as hawkish as my hon. Friend. To me, when things are so difficult and so many people are being squeezed, including those in work, and when people in the public sector, because of the austerity measures, are not getting their salaries uprated, it is even more important that the coalition Government should stick to their guns and uprate pensions by 5.2%. That is laudable. To me, personally, it is even more important that they uprated the disability living allowance and jobseeker’s allowance by 5.2%. I am utterly supportive of the Work programme to get people back into work, but I am bullish about the fact that it is terribly important that people who receive DLA, JSA and so on should receive the additional uprating. It demonstrates the coalition Government’s commitment, which I believe to be genuinely profound, to try to make this as fair as possible, irrespective of the economic challenges.

To be in a position in which we can say that we have uprated pensions by the highest ever figure in, frankly, the worst economic crisis since the great depression, let alone the second world war, is something of which I am very proud and of which the coalition Government should be very proud.

[Mr Ruffley]

Let me be clear: although we all welcome the generous uprating for pensioners, does my hon. Friend, like me, draw a distinction between the uplift for pensioners, which we welcome, and the fact that there has also been a commensurate over-compensation for non-pension benefit recipients relative to the working poor?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I disagree as I think that it is even more important that people in receipt of JSA and DLA at this time, when things are so difficult, are seen, shown and proven by the Government to be in a difficult position through no fault of their own. We want to show that they are entitled to that extra uprate. I appreciate that my hon. Friend and I might differ ideologically on that, but I hope that he accepts that my belief, although it is different, is profound.

On pensions and the £5.30, I remember canvassing in Eastbourne a few years ago when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had just introduced the 75p rise. Not only were the pensioners I spoke to absolutely incandescent with rage but they did not understand. A lot of the people I spoke to genuinely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the then Chancellor was on their side—I respect that totally—and that is what shocked them. They just could not believe that such a derisory payment could be made. It is therefore very encouraging that at this time, in such an economic crisis, we are sticking to the triple lock and CPI, and doing it at an uprate of £5.30, which is about £21.80 or whatever a month, compared with what it was before.

However, I have some frustrations, which are shared by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). It is very hard for the coalition Government to get the information out there about the uprate on disability living allowance. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have lobbied fiercely to him personally that that uprate should happen, but as hon. Friends have mentioned today, one would not think from the overwhelming response we have had in our inboxes that we had stuck to our guns on that. I pay tribute to the coalition Government on this issue: they have done the right thing.

On CPI and RPI, I have a lot of time for the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on pensions generally. He brings a very good and forensic brain to this whole area, and I listened carefully to what he said. To be honest, I think he made some good points. There will be years when the challenge concerning the swapping from RPI to CPI will be greater, but equally there will be years when it is lesser. I know that the Government’s figures are for a 20-year period and that, for the average pensioner, the figure will be equal to £13,000 more, over and above what it would have been with RPI. I am getting so many conflicting details and reports on this, and I have sort of decided that, even though I understand where the Government are coming from with CPI change, we should stand back a wee bit and see how the figures develop over the next few years. Certainly, in the Minister’s wind-up I would be grateful for a little more detail about the pluses of CPI and about the £13,000 figure. I would find that very helpful, as, I am sure, would many of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. What I do accept about CPI is that it strips out the mortgage side of things. I totally understand that because, certainly in my constituency, most elderly constituents tend to own their own homes, it is a more accurate and stable indicator. However, I would be grateful for a bit more detail on that.

Finally, and I have to be a bit partisan here, I find extraordinary the Opposition’s blanket opposition to CPI, with no caveats at all, because I know that the Labour party is introducing CPI for all its own staff’s pensions. I am a little confused about some of the rationale there. I know that others want to speak, so let me conclude by saying that I am delighted by the move on pensions regarding the triple lock, which the Minister will know was one of the Liberal Democrats’ key manifesto promises at the election. I am equally delighted that we stuck to our guns on that issue. There was quite a lot of battling and lobbying inside Government, as one would expect in a coalition, but it was all done with great courtesy. I am delighted that the 5.2% is not only in relation to pensions but is also for some other benefits, such as DLA, jobseeker’s allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance, as I have already discussed.

We in the coalition are determined to get through this mess with the robust austerity programme. I entirely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds on this. It is the only way we can get through this; otherwise, the bond markets would kill us—we both know that—and that would ramp up interest rates. I am delighted that despite all the challenges, we are trying profoundly, and well and as fairly as we can, to ensure that everyone in the country has to step up to the plate. That means that, yes, we have the Work programme for people who are out of work, but it is also about trying to ensure that people in that situation get a good uprate. That demonstrates that when it comes to the facts, by contrast with the hyperbole one sees in the media, the coalition Government are determined to do things right and fairly.

Thanks to the decision on these upratings, this is one of the times since I have been elected that I have felt genuinely proud to be a Member on the coalition Government side. I really mean that. That decision is entirely commendable and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

I shall not detain the House for long, I hope. We have had an interesting debate, which was begun by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who discussed some of the technicalities and complexities of uprating. I shall confine my remarks largely to the most controversial of the motions—the motion on the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012.

The contributions from Back Benchers have illuminated some of the issues at hand. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who is no longer in her place, made a heartfelt defence of what she described as the coalition’s sense of national mission. “Our great nation is in great peril,” she declared, although I am glad she cautioned that she is not doing cartwheels. I would never have made such a claim. She suggested that there has been a constant and very upsetting misrepresentation of the Government’s wider policy in this area, which she sought to correct by sharing the experience in her constituency. Not content with her party being in government, she was also keen to give the Opposition the benefit of her wisdom on how they should proceed on these and other matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) emphasised the great concern there is outside the House regarding the permanent switch from RPI to CPI and declared her support for an immediate return to RPI indexing. She emphasised that CPI indexing means a smaller rise for pensioners and out-of-work citizens over time. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham referred to the 0.7% average difference between an RPI and a CPI measure and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran emphasised from the Back Benches that if we had been using the RPI measure this year, the increase would have been 5.6% rather than 5.2%. She set out the real cumulative impact that the switch in indexing will have over time on the pensions and benefits of some of the more vulnerable members of our society.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), in what he described as a spirit of honest inquiry, set out some challenges for those on the Government Front Bench. He emphasised the public spending implications of a 5.2% rise based on a CPI measure in September. If I understood his argument correctly, he would have preferred to use either a six month figure, which he calculates would save the Treasury £780 million, or an average over 12 months until April 2012 using a forecast for this current quarter. That would have created an overall indexing figure of 4.4% and saved £1 billion, according to him. He put that in context by explaining that the real cost of living increase in the coming year will be 2.8%, which, if applied, would save the Treasury £3 billion, based on his calculations.

[Mr Ruffley]

The hon. Gentleman is reciting the argument brilliantly, but those are not my figures; they are my figures checked with the House of Commons Library.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. As a public spending hawk, as he described himself, he would much prefer one of those figures to be used, although he indicated that pensioners should receive 4.4% and those out of work should receive 2.8%, which would lead to an overall saving of £1.7 billion, based on the figures he cites. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to deal with this matter. The hon. Gentleman also emphasises the overall issue of work incentives. If people are in work but seeing a real squeeze on their incomes and living standards, in his view there is an issue of work incentives.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), from the Back Benches of the second coalition party, described himself as hawkish, but not as hawkish as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds. He was particularly pleased that DLA, GSA and other out-of-work benefits are receiving the full uprating and described the pension increase as the highest ever—perhaps I can come back to that later. He praised the shadow Minister in particular for his work on pensions. Alas, I suspect that he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, rather than me. My right hon. Friend is indeed an impressive parliamentarian, and I join the hon. Gentleman in his praise. The hon. Gentleman also said that he had sympathy with Labour’s position on RPI but was prepared to reflect over the coming years on how CPI operates and is keen for the Minister to give a little more detail on how CPI will operate.

The Minister set out the Government’s position clearly: they are spending money via this uprating to protect some of the most vulnerable in society. There will be a CPI increase of 5.2% on the basic state pension and the additional state pension—SERPS—and a 5.2% increase in most out-of-work benefits. They will also raise the pension credit minimum income guarantee above earnings to 3.9%, rather than 2.8%, to be paid for, as was discussed earlier, by raising the threshold for those eligible for savings credit by 8.4% and reducing the maximum savings credit payable per week from £20.52 to £18.54.

The Minister also set out his view that CPI is a better measure of pensioners’ cost of living. That is contestable, as the debate so far has suggested. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham raised the issue of housing costs, among other things, and the Minister has undertaken to look at the work of the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee on integrating housing costs into the CPI index.

The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) contributed to the debate in interventions. They noted that, if we are looking at the cost of living for pensioners, we must emphasise the cut in winter fuel allowance in the round and heating costs more widely. Those are things that the Minister will be aware of as he goes forward.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne emphasised that this was the largest real-terms increase in the pension for about 10 years. There was an interesting exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham on what exactly that amounted to. The Minister’s explanation, as I understood it, was that by the time the increases work through the system to the recipients, inflation will have fallen. My right hon. Friend rightly suggested that the Government should perhaps not take too much credit for inflation being so high and then falling—perhaps that was a quirk of timing, rather than the result of Government policy.

However, it is clear that, with a Backbench Business Committee debate on the switch from RPI to CPI scheduled for next week, this remains a live issue, and I am sure that it will be articulated in greater detail next week. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham indicated, the official Opposition could have looked closely at a temporary switch to CPI, but we cannot support a permanent switch from RPI when there is so much doubt about CPI as an accurate measure of the cost of living. There is merit in an earnings underpinning, but it has been noted more than once that in the first year of its existence the Minister picked his own lock, so to speak, and there was a greater increase in the state pension than there would have been with the triple lock. Although there is merit in an earnings underpinning, the fact remains that if RPI had been used last year and this year the increase would have been greater.

That said, and given that we cannot support a permanent switch from RPI, we support certain things in these uprating orders, but we cannot support the Government today.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) deserves particular credit for being here throughout and not making a speech, but we are grateful to her for her interventions. I shall respond to the key points that have been made. I was going to respond first to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I shall do so at the end if he has time to come back and join us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has also been surprised by the timing of the winding-up speeches. I am grateful for her contribution and her important point about the significance of the take-up of these benefits. It is all very well our sitting here debating the rates, but if people do not claim the benefits, it is a slightly academic exercise. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the importance of our making sure that the benefits are taken up— [Interruption.] I am delighted that she is rejoining us. I was welcoming her comments about benefit take-up, and today we have published the latest take-up figures for income-related benefits in the final year of the previous Government. They demonstrate that in the benefits under discussion many billions of pounds go unclaimed, so she is absolutely right that we should do all we can to encourage people to claim them.

My hon. Friend will have seen in these uprating orders that we are trying to shift the balance towards the benefits that people really do claim, such as the state pension, and even within pension credit we have loaded the balance towards the guarantee credit, which is more likely than the savings credit to be taken up. On today’s figures, for those who are entitled to savings credit only, the take-up rate is less than 50%, so it is vital that when we set benefit rates we ensure that people claim them. I was grateful to her for her insight on that point, on the certainty that the triple lock gives pensioners and on the fact that we have stuck to it despite difficult economic times, and I can assure her that we will continue to do so.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) was entirely straight with the House, saying that she does not agree with the CPI measure or with her Front Benchers. On the issue of whether that is controversial, of course it is, but all I was saying is that I last joined the National Pensioners Convention at a time when no decision had been made, so it is worth winding the House back to that point.

In the press there was speculation that we might introduce a freeze—I shall return in a second to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)—or use a forecast, a moving average or anything to get the number down. At that point, I was staggered to go to an NPC event and be—“harangued” would be uncharitable—forcefully encouraged to deliver 5.2%. Having seen that delivered, I would, if I were the NPC, then demand 5.6%. I understand that, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the pressure that the Government were under to do less, so 5.2% was an entirely decent settlement in the current economic climate.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made an important point about the cumulative effect, which was her key theme. She made an important point also about working age, but to focus on pensioners I note that there are two cumulative effects going on at the same time: one is the triple lock and the other is CPI, which applies to additional pensions. The question is, which is the greater?

The hon. Lady mentioned someone with an occupational pension of £10,000 a year, but from memory—this is only from memory—the average occupational pension in payment is about £4,000 a year, so her example is more than double the typical sum, and our estimate, looking just at the cumulative impact over a retirement of the basic pension, is where the £13,000 figure comes from. Looking purely and cumulatively at the triple lock, because the earnings figure is normally more than RPI, we find that people will get more through that. CPI is on average less than RPI, so on the additional pension they will get less.

The cumulative effect of the two is beneficial to those with lower occupational pensions, but less beneficial—indeed, there are net losses—to those with higher occupational pensions. So the hon. Lady is probably right: someone on a £10,000 occupational pension will get smaller net increases and someone on a £3,000 occupational pension will get bigger net increases overall. That is taking account of the two policies. She is right that these policies have a cumulative effect. For example, on the CPI link for local housing allowance, the Government have said that they will continue with that for two years and review the position having done so. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to the Chair of the Select Committee’s unfortunate accident. I am sure that we all wish her our very best for a speedy recovery.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds observed that the September 2011 figure was a peak. He said that by the time we get to April 2012 it will already be a bit out of date and that by the end of 2012-13 it will be 18 months out of date. This involves two separate questions: first, whether we should use forecasts or historical figures; and, secondly, what we should have done this year. The VAT increase in January 2011 was a significant driver of the 5.2% figure. Had we, for example, chosen to look at inflation only over certain months, or chosen to switch to the future just at the precise point when something quite big happened historically, people might have queried our sincerity. At times in the late 1970s and ’80s, some Governments switched to and fro between forecasts and historical figures, and there was a sense that that had nothing to do with compensating for inflation but was merely trying to find a low number. It is important that we have a system for compensating for inflation that we stick to and a separate system of judgments on what the country can afford, whereby if we cannot afford 5.2%, we should say so. We should not try to think of a period that will give us a lower number. My hon. Friend is right that if we had used a lower inflation measure we could have saved a lot of money, but that is the answer to a different question.

[Mr Ruffley]

The burden of my argument did not relate especially to last autumn’s figure but to the principle of whether, for a 12-month period in which one is seeking by an uprating to compensate benefit recipients for the cost of living, one should use a figure, whatever it is, that is six months prior—that is, the September figure.