Affordable Homes Bill

David Ward Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to my speeches. I was always in favour of the right to buy scheme and enabling people to buy, and live in, their home—an Englishman’s home is his castle and all of that kind of stuff, and that applies equally to the Scots, Welsh and Irish—but local authorities were not allowed to replace that housing stock with social housing, and we set ourselves a long-term economic problem from which we have still to recover. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have another go and attack me by saying the Labour Government did not do enough when we were in power, he is absolutely right: we did not, and we acknowledge that, which is why one of our key commitments is to guarantee that by the end of a Labour Government in 2020—by that general election—we will be building 200,000 properties in the United Kingdom.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make a little progress.

The bedroom tax was ill prepared and it has been very poorly implemented by the Government. It is riddled with logical inconsistencies—as we have heard several times already today—and it has a central injustice at its very heart: the poor and the vulnerable are being made to pay for a recession that was caused by irresponsible lending not by them but by the wealthy in the City of London and in other countries around the world.

Some Government policies introduced since 2010 have been incompetent, and others, I believe, have been unfair, but this one manages to combine unfairness and incompetence to a phenomenal degree—quite a feat—and I am delighted that not only the two hon. Members from the Liberal party who have already spoken will be joining us in supporting that conclusion today, but that, I hope, all the other Liberal Democrat Members will do so as well. What particularly galls me and many on the Opposition Benches is that this was not only predictable but was predicted by countless Members of this House and by countless organisations—the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association, local authorities up and down the land, individuals coming forward to newspapers—yet all the warnings were completely ignored.

I am sure the Conservative Minister will tell us that the aim of the bedroom tax is solely to end overcrowding in the social housing sector—the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) was, I think, trying to suggest that earlier. The declared aim was to force the nation to use the social housing stock more efficiently. I am sorry, but I simply distrust Conservatives talking about the social housing sector. We now have the lowest number of social housing completions in 20 years. I have already talked about the way in which the right to buy was implemented. In 2010, one of the first things this Government did was to slash the affordable housing budget by 60%. How on earth can people make an argument in favour of social housing when they have just slashed its budget by 60%?

From the outset, the Government knew that the vast majority of people would not be able to move into smaller accommodation—not because they did not want to move, but simply because there were no other suitable properties. Indeed, such is the cynicism of this Government that that was factored into the original financial assumptions that they made. They did not presume that 75% of the people affected by the bedroom tax would move, or 50% or even 20%. Their working assumption was that fewer than one in 10 families affected would be able to move to a suitable property, yet they went ahead with their retrospective change to a benefit that goes to hundreds of thousands of people who are in work. That is another element that galls me. So often, the rhetoric—from Conservative Ministers in particular—has suggested that this is all about the workshy, but actually a great many people in receipt of housing benefit are in work. It is the matching of housing benefit and work that makes work pay and makes it possible for those people to work.

The Government’s own evaluation, published this July, makes really depressing reading on this very point. Just 4.5% of those affected by the bedroom tax moved within six months. In the areas with the fewest people affected, a higher percentage—some 16%—moved, but in some areas, the numbers were even lower. The Secretary of State seems to think that that represents a great success, but I disagree. It points to the real problem, which is that there simply are not enough suitable smaller properties to move into, and that the areas with the highest number of people affected have the fewest properties for them to move into. In other words, the poorest communities in this country are the worst hit, through absolutely no fault of their own. That means that, at a time of real financial hardship, money is being deliberately siphoned off from the poor at the rate of £14 or £22 a week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That is true. Many people who are in that situation are in socially affordable housing, some of which is local authority or former local authority accommodation. However, I do not see how that militates against the fundamental problem that although there might be plenty of housing for people to move to in Conservative seats in some parts of the south-east, there simply is not enough in the areas where the greatest number of people are affected by the bedroom tax. So unless the hon. Lady wants to move thousands of people from the north of England into constituencies such as hers, there will continue to be a problem.

What are the wider effects of the policy? We already know that, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s original announcement that the disabled would not be affected by it, two thirds of those affected have a disability of some kind. Nurses, members of the armed forces and families with sons or daughters in the armed forces have also been affected.

There is also clear evidence that countless families are cutting back on household essentials or running up debts. The Government’s own evaluation—not an evaluation made up by anyone else—states that 50% of claimants reported cutting back on what they deemed to be household essentials in order to pay the bedroom tax. More than a quarter of claimants—26%—said that they had borrowed money to pay it, mostly from family and friends, while 3% had borrowed money on a credit card, 3% had taken out payday loans, 10% had used savings and 9% had been given money from other members of their family. That is a devastating record. It shows the poverty into which the Government seem deliberately to be pushing people.

Six out of 10 households affected by the bedroom tax are now in arrears. At the moment, social landlords have decided to hold off from evicting such tenants, but there will come a point at which they will have to make the difficult decision whether to allow the situation to continue or to remove those people.

[Mr Ward]

There is also a knock-on effect, in that the increase in arrears leads to an increase in the cost of borrowing for social housing providers, and the composition of housing stock differs from area to area. In some areas where families were unwilling to move into blocks of flats, many of the flats remained empty. Single people were then encouraged to move into the empty flats, but following the introduction of this policy were told that they would have to pay extra money to stay there. They were encouraged to move into them, but then found themselves at a disadvantage.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not need to reiterate it, except to say that that is why I find the retrospective element of the policy’s application to be one of its cruellest aspects.

Jobs and Work

David Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Anyone who has listened to a number of speeches by Labour Members during this debate could be forgiven for believing that the good news about unemployment that we continue to see month on month—the 2 million jobs created by the economy, the record pace of the fall in unemployment, and more people, including more women, working than ever before—had never actually happened.

A number of Members have referenced the picture in their own constituency and I will briefly do the same for mine. More than 800 fewer people are on the unemployment register now than 12 months ago. Unemployment has fallen by a third. In east Kent, wages are rising faster than the national average and unemployment is falling faster. We are seeing the regeneration of the local economy.

Some Members have said that nothing is being done about apprenticeships, but nothing could be further from the truth. The number of young people starting an apprenticeship in my constituency this year is more than three times the number under the previous Government. Significant strides forward are being taken and young people are benefiting from that.

I also want to take this opportunity, in front of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to thank a group of people who do not get thanked enough, namely the staff at Jobcentre Plus in Folkestone. They are dedicated to what they do and work very hard with employers and people who are looking for work, particularly young people seeking apprenticeships and work placements. There will always be cases that we as Members of Parliament will take up with jobcentre teams, but they are a dedicated and hard-working group who are doing their best for people and we are seeing the result, which is fast-falling unemployment.

If Members were to stand in the middle of my constituency—this is certainly true of Folkestone—they would be considerably nearer to the coast of France than to the House of Commons. It is interesting, therefore, to reflect on the difference between the employment picture in Folkestone and that in Boulogne, with which we have been twinned for many years. Many Labour Members have suggested that if the Government had taken a different course—such as borrowing more money or taxing more heavily—perhaps things would have worked out even better, but the French economy gives us a live example of what might have happened. The unemployment rate in Folkestone is 3.4%, but in Boulogne it is more than 15%. The average hourly wage in Folkestone and Hythe is £12, whereas in Boulogne it is £9.

If we look at the performance of the British and French economies, we will see not only that unemployment here is lower, but that the rate of business start-ups here is significantly higher. Earlier this year, I was interested to read in The New York Times, which is not exactly famed for being a tribune of the hard right—it is a fairly liberal, moderate newspaper—an article called, “Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs”. It looked at the growing trend of people moving from France to the UK to set up their own business, and quoted Guillaume Santacruz, who explained his thinking:

“A lot of people are like, ‘Why would you ever leave France?’…I’ll tell you. France has a lot of problems. There’s a feeling of gloom that seems to be growing deeper. The economy is not going well, and if you want to get ahead or run your own business, the environment is not good.”

When asked why he had chosen to come to the UK, he said:

“I asked myself, ‘Where will I have the bigger opportunity in Europe?’…London was the obvious choice. It’s more dynamic and international, business funding is easier to get, and it’s a better base if you want to expand.”

I am pleased to hear anyone tell such a story about their reasons for coming here.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

In the short time available to the hon. Gentleman, will he, as the chair of an all-party group that covers the textile industry, say what a great news story the renaissance in UK textiles is?

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Textiles is becoming one of the great renaissance industries, with British textile businesses and manufacturing centres winning contracts back from the far east, creating high-quality jobs here and supporting the fantastic British fashion industry. That is one of the great success stories.

The shadow Secretary of State spoke about picking winners and having a positive industrial strategy. We see that nowhere more clearly than in the creative sector in this country. The recovery in textiles is such an example, but the Government’s programme of tax credits for film, animation and television production—now extended to theatre production as well—is bringing more work not just to England, Scotland and Wales, but to Northern Ireland, where it is a very important part of the renaissance of the Northern Ireland economy.

The Opposition amendment requires a bit more attention, which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills gave it in his speech, because the Labour party is once again presenting itself as the champion of a great cause, without having any real answers for the problems it identifies. In its amendment, Labour does not propose the adoption of the living wage as the minimum wage—it is largely proposing exactly what the Government are doing, which is to encourage the Low Pay Commission to consider increasing the minimum wage faster than average earnings—and does not propose to mandate any changes, while it includes the caveat that the Low Pay Commission is still free to disregard Labour’s advice and do what it wants.

On the basis of the amendment, Labour is somehow seeking to present itself as a party with a very different policy. It does have different policies on tax and spending, which are those that got the economy into the mess it was in. Our policies are leading to a renaissance in work, employment and business start-ups, and they are also delivering a fairer deal for the low-paid, both in increasing the minimum wage ahead of the rise in average earnings and in cutting taxes for low-paid people in work. That is a much better model to follow.

The future is incredibly bright for business and job creation in this country. The very large number of people who, as we come out of the recession, have decided to set up their own business, start up on their own and invest in themselves and their community is a sign of the great underlying heath of the economy today.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

David Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Families going through a break-up often face some of the most complex and difficult situations for people to resolve, and we know that the cost of children growing up without a parent can be considerable both in social terms and because of the impact on the individual who is separated from a parent. This legislation will make it more difficult for non-resident parents to stay in touch and maintain proper contact with their children, and that is reprehensible.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that because of variations in unemployment rates and the composition of the housing stock, and because the characteristics of tenants vary between areas and the other considerations hon. Members have raised, this issue should be one of local discretion based on local conditions and phased in only when matched by a programme of social house building?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to make a speech to set out that case later this afternoon. I would like to see decisions on these policies, including the budgets, devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s contribution about what works well for England.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

David Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

This is not a difficult one for me. I believe that benefits are far too high—I think most people accept they are at an unsustainable level.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Too high?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

Yes; as a nation, our payments on benefits are, without a doubt, far too high. However, what we face in this Bill seems to be a huge lack of confidence by the coalition in its own policies and programmes to deal with that situation.

None of us is going to support scroungers, skivers or people who are fraudulently claiming disability benefits. None of us is going to say that we should not support people into work, but we on the Government Benches say, “We are doing all of that.” We on this side of the House say that we are dealing with the situation so that we can reduce the colossal welfare bill to the nation. It shows a huge lack of confidence for us then to say that we now need to go to the least well-off in the country and say, “You’ve got to make a contribution to deficit reduction,” because if our measures work—we say they are going to work; we tell people how successful they will be—what are we left with? We are left with those who want a job and cannot get one, even when they have been through the Work programme. We are talking about those who are disabled—and who have been assessed as disabled—who are not able to work. We are talking about those in work but on low incomes. Despite the confidence in our strategy, these are the people to whom we are now saying, “We’re not really sure, because we’re going to have to come to you, for you to make a contribution as well.”

I have identified three arguments for this move. The first relates to incentives, and states that work should always pay, but I thought we were going to ensure that that happened anyway. Is that not what universal credit was supposed to be about? The second argument is that we cannot afford to do otherwise, but I did not see much cutting back on the Olympics. I have heard various suggestions, and yes, there are tough decisions to be made. It has been suggested that we limit the tax relief on pensions. We are seen as being able to afford to give tax reductions to millionaires, and of course we can afford to give rich pensioners winter fuel payments. These are examples of the decisions that need to be made, and there are many more, but we need to look at all of them before we turn to the people on the lowest incomes and those with no income who are surviving on benefits.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fiscal cliff deal made last week in America, which took the most money from the top 2%, gave money to those on lower incomes and is projected to increase growth by 1%, is a much better way of squaring the circle than the measures in the autumn statement, which will take money from the bottom 30% to 50% and give it to those further up the ladder, which is reducing overall consumer demand?

[Mr Ward]

We all know that. We know about the multiplier effect on consumer demand. It is not a secret; it is well researched and we all understand it.

The third reason for the proposals that I have identified relates to fairness. A national debate about fairness is taking place at the moment. I am about to get really technical: there is a difference between somebody who is unemployed and somebody who is employed. The person who is unemployed does not have a job. The person who is employed has a job. They are not the same; we cannot compare them when we are talking about fairness and a 1% increase. I will give the House another really technical fact: those people who are on low incomes and receiving tax credits are receiving those tax credits because they are on low incomes. It is very technical, this. How on earth can we compare those on low incomes or on benefits with people who are in a job? We cannot say that it is unfair—or bizarre, according to the Prime Minister—to give someone who is in a job 1%, but then give 2% to those on benefits. We cannot compare the two. There is a difference between somebody who is on benefits and somebody who has a job. The evidence for that is clear.

Of course, people who are in employment do not like the pay freezes or the 1% increase, but is anyone seriously suggesting that they would give up their job to be unemployed? Don’t be ridiculous! Let us not forget that we are eliminating the scroungers and all the rest of it. In my experience, most people in work look at those who are unemployed and say, “Thank God it’s not me!” They do not say that it is unfair that their benefits are being increased; they say, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

I have mentioned the massive lack of confidence in our proposals, but there could be another reason for these measures, although I hope that it is not true. It relates to a sense that the public at large are in favour of these welfare reforms, egged on by opinion polls, and that some people on the Government Benches see that as an opportunity to attack the unemployed. I fear that that is being driven by a deep-rooted conviction that unemployed people are unemployed by choice. This is what worries me. I hope that the explanation is in fact the lack of confidence, but I suspect, deep down, that far too many people on this side of the House believe that unemployed people are the undeserving poor, that they need to sort themselves out, and that we cannot possibly reward them with an increase. Let us remember, too, that this is not an increase. When inflation is taken into account, the measure will simply freeze the level of benefits that we have already decided will provide people with a minimum standard of living. The measure is not fair, and I will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this sensitive and important debate. Any debate that focuses on our welfare system tends to provoke a great deal of passion, and it can be all too easy for politicians of all parties to fall into lazy arguments based on simplistic generalisations or preconceived ideas.

Our welfare system is a valuable part of our social fabric. Even a believer in a small state, like me, can believe that we should unquestionably support those in our society who fall on desperately hard times, either temporarily or permanently. For those who find themselves truly in need, support must be provided through our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable.

However, the idea that our welfare system was sufficiently reliable or fair upon the formation of the coalition Government in 2010 is simply ludicrous. First, the system that we inherited was simply unaffordable, costing taxpayers more than £87 billion in 2010 alone. Such enormous outgoings must be reviewed and targeted for efficiencies. To suggest that a desire to reduce the cost of the welfare system is akin to not supporting vulnerable people is nonsense. In fact, I would argue that a shrinking welfare budget would be a key indicator of a successful welfare system.

That brings me to my second point which is about the wider welfare situation that we inherited in 2010. It was creating a culture of sheer dependency in certain parts of the system and contributing towards the dangerous social divide that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) touched upon.

[Mr Ward]

I welcome the fact that you welcome a safety net. Do you not agree that unless you increase benefits by the rate of inflation, you are lowering that safety net?

[Julian Sturdy]

As you rightly said in your speech—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ward Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

We have been listening very much. We found some of the reports to be highly selective and quite skewed. They did not take into consideration how much extra support was going to people with disabilities, but we are listening, there is transitional protection and we will be releasing the assessment criteria later in the year.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

The Minister has no doubt read today’s copy of Bradford’s The Telegraph and Argos and the letter from Mr Barry Thorne about his son. He felt compelled to write the letter following the comments from Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson. The fear is that those with clearly defined medical concerns, such as his son Stephen, will feel threatened and fearful at the prospect of reapplying and being interviewed. Are those fears unfounded?

[Esther McVey]

I believe that those fears are unfounded. Everybody tries to put information into the public arena that is meant to help, but frequently they do not, and instead raise fears. The whole reason for having a face-to-face interview is so that the claimant can explain clearly why they might need the benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ward Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have already published the referral numbers to the Work programme and we continue to publish estimates of the number of referrals to the Work programme. Every single person on employment and support allowance has access to the Work programme today, and every single person who moves from employment and support allowance to jobseeker’s allowance has access to the Work programme within three months.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

While we must all welcome the public acclaim given to the Olympians taking part in the Paralympics, does the Minister agree that those with learning difficulties who have their own special Olympics are seldom given the same level of acknowledgement for their skills and abilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. However, the Paralympics will give this country a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to showcase the talents of disabled people. I recently had the privilege of speaking to Channel 4 about how it will be covering this event and to meet some of the six disabled people who are now trained commentators who will be showcasing this amazing event.

Welfare Reform Bill

David Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I agree with all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, with the exception of the Minister.

As I understand it, the Government’s justification for prosecuting the bedroom tax against even very vulnerable people is that it will free up social housing and relieve the shortage. If that is the case, someone in a constituency such as mine—where 8,000 people are on the waiting list with no possibility of being housed in the private sector because of costs—should welcome such provisions. However, we know, because no alternative properties are available, that this is in fact simply a cost-saving measure. As for the idea of a property being empty for 20 years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, properties are not empty for 20 minutes in Hammersmith before they are snapped up.

Everything that this Government are doing, whether it be the cuts to the social housing grant, the changes to affordable rents—I should say that the affordable rent at 80% of the open market value of a four-bedroom property in Hammersmith would require an income of £96,000 a year—the changes in homelessness legislation or the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, weakens the security and provision of social housing. What we are discussing is another measure to make social tenants second-class citizens and social tenants on benefit third-class citizens.

If I may do so in just one minute, I would like to give as an example my own local authority—a Conservative-controlled local authority and the favoured local authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In the last two weeks it has given approval for more than 3,000 new houses to be built. Not one of those 3,000 properties will be a new social home for rent; rather, they are replacing 750 good-quality homes, which are in the process of being demolished, so we are already seeing downsizing at work. The authority received £100 million for that demolition from the property developer and another £100 million was received for selling off 300 good-quality social homes on the open market by auction, and it is building 25 new council homes. However, even though those council homes are on estates and will be low-cost homes that therefore could be rented, they will all be for private sale.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are failing to understand the sheer scale of this matter? The largest social landlord in Bradford has 3,800 under-occupied households, and it would take three years with no re-lets or new lets to house people there under the proposals.

[Mr Slaughter]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is right on this issue.

The point has been made by those on my Front Bench many times that we are talking about people’s homes. This proposal is cynical not only because it runs completely in the face of Government policy in every other area, which is to reduce affordability and the quantum of available social housing, but because it is about persecuting people in social tenancies and making them feel that their home is no longer their own. For that reason above all, I urge the House to support the Labour Front Bench in supporting the Lords amendment.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

David Ward Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am glad that the politicians who sat in this House when I was born and was growing up in this country did not decide that the burden of debt was so great that they could not introduce the reforms that brought us the welfare state. It was not their view that they should stop planning, being optimistic and working towards a better future for their children and grandchildren. Despite the national debt being eye-wateringly high, our predecessors in this place were prepared to go ahead with reform and change.

Today, we have heard several speakers, including the Pensions Minister and the Secretary of State, argue that the Opposition are somehow being unfair to future generations, whereas the Government are being fair, because we would burden people with more debt. I think that our predecessors did the right thing for us. In fact, it was so much the right thing that I suspect it created the problem that we now have with longevity. The incredible improvements in life expectancy over the past 50 or 60 years have their roots in the creation of the welfare state.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

My parents, and I suspect the hon. Lady’s parents, had rationing after the war because the situation was so serious, and it was not good for many years after that.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Rationing, oddly enough, did a lot for people’s health and well-being. For some people in Britain at that time, it did not represent a worse standard of living, although it may have done for others, because during the 1930s many families struggled to put food on their tables because of unemployment.

The point that I was making is that the vision was not constrained by the debt. Things were difficult in many ways in the post-war period, but the Government of the day were nevertheless of the view that one had to plan for the future. I am not a great pessimist about debt. I feel that the whole thing has been grossly misrepresented by Government Members. In the early years of the last decade, the Government reduced the debt. Debt was very high in the period of the last Conservative Government, which people appear to have forgotten. It is not the case that the last Labour Government simply set about building up that debt in some sort of systematic way, to the detriment of future generations, as is suggested.

Of course we have to address how to cease having annual financial deficits, and then in the medium to long term we have to reduce debt. However, at the moment the signs are at the medicine that the coalition parties are applying is not working. The chances are that, the way things are going, we will get to the end of this Parliament with a greater debt. We are already borrowing more than was projected last year, which is indeed quite frightening, but it means that we need to consider what we want to do.

I am not going to make too much of this point, because various people have made it earlier, but all Governments make choices about what they spend money on. We do not believe that the choice to accelerate the pension age rise for women is the right one. There are others that could be made, and we would be making them if we were in government. It has been said in this debate and others that if we cannot immediately identify some cut equivalent to any spending that we suggest is justified and fair, we are somehow being irresponsible. I do not accept that.

I suggested earlier a couple of things that I thought we could do, for example not ending the 50% tax rate, as some Government Members seem keen to do. The idea keeps being floated. We could also consider how we provide tax relief on the pension contributions of people on higher-rate tax earnings, because that is a huge giveaway to those who are already better off. There are a number of choices that we could make. I know that this is not the view of everyone on the Labour Benches, but personally I am not in favour of going ahead with Trident. Some of my colleagues agree with me and some do not, but the important point is that there are always choices.

I was going to say that we had driven people out of the Gallery in this debate, because when I started to speak it was completely empty. However, people have now obviously come in to hear me. People often see the subject of pensions as a bit of a bore and not very exciting, but it is hugely important. I regret greatly that the very good pensions legislation that Barbara Castle introduced, which brought in the state earnings-related pension scheme, was completely destroyed by the last Conservative Government. Had that not happened, many people would be very much better off now.

Although I very much agree with auto-enrolment, I am afraid I do not see it a complete substitute for that legislation. However, we must not move away from auto-enrolment, and I very much welcome the guarantees from the Secretary of State and the Pensions Minister that they will not agree to any delay in its rolling out. Nevertheless, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) gave, I am not in a position to support the Bill tonight.

Youth Unemployment

David Ward Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is a fellow graduate of the university of Bradford. I shall cut to the chase. I have quite a lot to say about the schemes to help young people aged 18 to 24, but that is not the contribution that I want to make. I want to follow on from some of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about those in the school system. The Minister may say that I am making my speech to the wrong Minister, but in some ways that is the problem. There is a lack of joined-up thinking between Ministers.

The Secretary of State recently came to Bradford. I say Bradford, but it was Ilkley, where there are no NEETs, absolutely zero, and to Bingley where there are 19, but in my constituency, the average secondary school, let alone ward, has more young people than that on a reduced timetable and receiving specialist provision. I am not speaking behind the Secretary of State’s back because I have spoken to him about this, and I hope that he will remedy it with a visit to some parts of Bradford in the future.

The issue that I want to focus on is not what we do post-18 or post-16, but what we do from birth and certainly from the ages of 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. At that point, although there are still many problems to be faced, there is a chance with appropriate and skilled intervention to do something about the future life chances of young people. A reduced timetable tends to be the answer, but we are often dealing with teachers who simply do not have—why should they?—the necessary skills set to deal with often difficult young people.

The consequences of failure are there to see in the statistics on NEETs post-16, and teenage pregnancies. In my area, 20% of DWP claimants aged 16 to 24 are lone parents. The other consequence—this is stark language, I know—is the number of young people who end up in Armley prison. That is how serious the issue is.

The main problem seems to be that we burden the post-16 world with remedial work as a consequence of a failure to support structured interventions pre-16. The pre-16 work is often unco-ordinated and insufficiently funded. It involves a mixture of separate units and reduced timetables, as I mentioned. I am sorry to have to say that for many schools it is simply a case of getting a young person through, without losing track of them, to the age of 16, when they can pass them on to someone else because it is no longer their responsibility.

Why is no permanent, mainstream, funded provision available? Within these four walls, that has repercussions. There is additional funding for pupils who have English as an additional language, but none for white working-class pupils, whose literacy skills may be just as bad and whose oral skills are often deplorable. No wonder we have issues with the British National party and the English Defence League in some of our white communities. We need to have a positive response to that.

The answer to the question that I have posed is that often the provision is regarded as just a temporary measure. We see schemes in schools that involve a pilot followed by another pilot. A short-term pot of funding is available and then another one needs to be found. There is no continuation and certainly no mainstream funding available. However, until we deal with the high levels of deprivation in some of our communities, there will be a constant flow of disaffected young people who end up requiring post-16 and post-18 support, which by then will be of no value.

Some schools are doing well. Carlton Bolling college, a secondary school with which I was involved, provides an example of sustained effort. That includes off-site provision; learning support units; timetables that are reduced but with a mixture of provision; and the development of a vocational curriculum. However, those options are expensive and are all without additional funding. The Ilkley grammars of this world have the same level of funding per pupil, but do not have the problems that a school such as Carlton Bolling college has. It is hoped that the pupil premium will provide support, but that should not be required. What is really required is intensive, integrated multi-agency work, and much of that has to involve family interventions. That work is difficult and expensive, but the cost to society of not doing it is of course even greater.

We must consider how we assess our schools. How will we ever adequately fund measures to deal with some of these issues when we assess and evaluate schools based on league tables that reward a school that lifts a young person from a grade D to a C, but does nothing at all to acknowledge the fact that to get someone from nothing to something—G or above—is often a far more prestigious accomplishment? Again in stark language, how will we ever adequately fund such measures when a school receives more credit for converting a student from a D to a C than for diverting a student from a life of crime?

Much work needs to be done. No doubt the Minister will say that he is not personally responsible for the group to which I am referring. However, the conveyor belt of failure has to be picked up by the Minister. We need clear evidence first that the Minister is aware of it and then that measures are being taken to join up the provision required to stop that conveyor belt.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ward Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

18. If he will assess the potential effect on the level of homelessness of the extension of the shared accommodation rate for housing benefit to single people aged under 35 years.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

19. If he will assess the potential effect on the level of homelessness of the extension of the shared accommodation rate for housing benefit to single people aged under 35 years.

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

An equality impact assessment on this measure was published on the DWP website on 9 May 2011, but it does not contain a specific estimate of the impact on homelessness, because we cannot anticipate the behaviours of tenants or their landlords.

[Steve Webb]

We do indeed, and my hon. Friend, who has a strong track record on housing issues in this House, raises an important point. Over the next four years we will add a total of £190 million to the money going to local authorities, around two thirds of which will be discretionary payments to help just the sort of difficult cases that he mentions, plus other funding for local government to assist them.

[Mr Ward]

I welcome that answer, but is it not likely that perhaps a third or more of the discretionary housing payments budget will be required for the disabled alone—and that is without considering other vulnerable groups—if local authorities decide to use it to stop them being forced to share? Is there not a case for simply exempting certain groups from the change altogether?

[Steve Webb]

I can assure my hon. Friend that certain disabled groups have a blanket exemption: those who qualify for the severe disablement premium are automatically exempted from these proposals.