Pensions and Social Security

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister has helpfully explained that we are dealing with three separate orders, aspects of which are welcome but others of which are decidedly unwelcome. I shall make it clear where we do not support the Government.

The Pensions Act 2008 (Amendment) Order—to give it a rather briefer title than the one the Minister used—makes minor amendments to protected rights over payments of defined contributions contracted-out pension schemes. As he said, the underpinning legislation is the Pensions Act 2008. I accept that the order is necessary to clarify a following order, and I have no objection to it.

The most substantial of the orders—the one that I am sure this debate will focus on—is the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2012, which, as the Minister said, uprates most out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension in line with the consumer prices index. For most out-of-work benefits, this will be the second year that CPI has been used rather than RPI, but for the basic state pension it is the first year. Members might recall that, like this year, last year the Government trumpeted their triple lock on the basic state pension.

I recall that in the debate last year the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who unfortunately is not with us today, congratulated his hon. Friend the Minister on his success in introducing the triple lock—only, the Government did not, in fact, apply it last year. Under the triple lock, the basic state pension would have been uprated by CPI, which was a long way below RPI last year, so the Minister—prudently, I think—decided to overrule his triple lock on its first outing and instead operate the old mechanism, uprating the basic state pension by the higher rate, RPI. In doing so, he exposed to public view the weakness of his triple lock. He had to override it in the first year it was due to be applied. Advertised as a safeguard for pensioners, the triple lock in fact undermines pensions uprating.

The Government have told us that the switch from RPI to CPI is not simply a deficit reduction measure. Instead, the justification for the switch is that, as the Minister said again today, CPI is a more accurate measure of changes in the cost of living for pensioners. Last year the Minister told us that he viewed CPI as

“the most appropriate measure of price inflation for this purpose,”

and that he saw

“no reason to change it in the future.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1174-77.]

However, the view that RPI, let alone CPI, is an adequate measure of pensioner inflation is one on which many pensioners would take issue with him, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) suggested a few minutes ago. I was interested in the Minister’s view that the National Pensioners Convention is happy with CPI uprating. However, as the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, among others, has pointed out in its briefing:

“The Royal Statistical Society…has said that CPI fails to reflect the spending patterns of pensioners and the rising costs they face. The Institute for Fiscal Studies”—

to which the Minister referred—

“has shown that most pensioner households are not shielded from many of the costs excluded from CPI. The UK Statistics Authority…has said that they do not believe the CPI should become the primary measure of data inflation until housing costs are included,”

which is a point that he touched on in response to my intervention.

The Minister has tried to paint the change as simply a sensible bureaucratic change, not one that is ideologically motivated or that represents a cut in the income of pensioners, but in reality that is not the case. As the UK Statistics Authority put it last year:

“Questions about compensation, who to compensate and what for, are straightforwardly political questions, not for statisticians.”

In other words, this is a matter for political decision. Let us be frank with people: the Government have chosen to uprate benefits and pensions permanently in a way that, in the case of benefits, will usually be meaner than the method used before and, in the case of pensions, was meaner this year and last year, which is why the Government overrode it last year and used the old method instead.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I seem to recall some embarrassment in the Labour party back in 2000 when the low rate of 1.1% was used to uprate pensions, the result of which was a 75p increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, under this Government, the triple lock will ensure that 2.5% is the minimum that can be paid?

[Stephen Timms]

Of course, that is indeed the effect of the mechanism that the Government have chosen. I would simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous method was still in place, there would be a higher increase in the basic state pension than the Minister has announced today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

It is probably the case that the Government’s poor performance on inflation—to go back to a point the Minister made earlier—and the resulting high level of inflation have been a surprise. I do not think anyone expected inflation to rise so rapidly. However, I want to underline the point, which the Minister has not acknowledged yet, that if RPI was still in place for the coming year, the increase for pensioners would be higher than the order in question sets out.

The judgment to adopt this approach of using a permanently meaner version of uprating than was in place before is one that we oppose. Of course there is a pressing need to reduce the deficit. We know, as does the International Monetary Fund—and, it would seem, the credit rating agencies and, this week, the former Defence Secretary—that reducing the deficit requires economic growth, which is strikingly absent at the moment. With the economy not creating enough new jobs and so many people out of work, not paying taxes but instead claiming benefits, targets for reducing the deficit will just keep being pushed back further and further. We heard in the autumn statement that we will be borrowing £158 billion more over the lifetime of this Parliament than on the last estimate, because the Government’s economic policy has failed to deliver growth and the economy has flatlined. If, instead of the permanent switch to CPI uprating, a temporary switch had been proposed—with the aim of contributing to deficit reduction over a short period—that might, in our view, have been justified, but we do not support the Government’s policy of a permanent switch to meaner uprating.

In the debate last year, the Minister attempted to make something of the fact that, for five of the past 20 years, RPI had been lower than CPI. Well, it was not lower last year, and it is not lower this year. RPI has generally been higher. Since 1989, the gap between RPI and RPI minus X and the CPI measure has been 0.7% on average. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s November economic and fiscal outlook suggests that the long-run difference between RPI and CPI is likely to be a good deal more, at about 1.4 percentage points. That is twice as much as that historic average, so the OBR thinks that the gap between RPI uprating and the CPI uprating that the Government want to apply in perpetuity is going to get bigger, not narrower.

[George Hollingbery]

I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has made a commitment that, had a Labour Government been in power now, they would have uprated pensions using RPI. Has he calculated how much that might cost, and is that a spending commitment that he is prepared to make here today? Secondly, if he is arguing for RPI uprating in future, does he have any idea of the long-term commitment that that might involve for the Government?

[Stephen Timms]

I shall deal with the last point immediately. I have said that if this Government had proposed a temporary switch to CPI uprating in order to contribute to deficit reduction, we would have looked seriously at that argument. It is the permanent downgrading of the uprating method for pensions and all other benefits that we think is wrong.

The DWP impact assessment from July last year told us that the impact on occupational pensions over the next 15 years would be more than £70 billion, and I think the Minister has said that it would be more than £80 billion. It will certainly involve a very large figure indeed. In this coming year, the gap between CPI and RPI—the figure that has been used refers back to last September—is relatively small, at 0.4%. I think the Minister is hoping that pensioners will not notice that his triple lock, which sounds so generous, is in fact delivering a lower increase than the long-established formula used by all Governments until this one. High inflation makes this a substantial cash increase, but, given what the Minister has said about the importance of keeping inflation low, it is not greatly to this Government’s credit that the cash increase is so large.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I regard good health and safety as of paramount importance. Britain can be proud of having the best record on health and safety in the workplace in Europe, and nothing that the Government do will undermine that. I can confirm that it is my view and that of the Health and Safety Executive that it has the necessary resources to get the job done and to deliver in reality on this very good report.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Has the Minister received representations on the Löfstedt review from employers or trade unions?

[Chris Grayling]

I have been very encouraged by the participation of employer groups and the TUC in the Löfstedt proposals. The fact that we had people from both sides of the employment and political spectrums supporting the report at this morning’s launch was a tribute to the work of everybody involved. It is a sign that we now have a cross-party blueprint for the future of health and safety in this country.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

In a moment.

However, I say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and the House that those other measures do not mean that we can cut the winter fuel payment to such a massive extent. It goes directly to our senior citizens and is an important tool. It is not the only tool—it goes only to senior citizens but, as I have said, they are disproportionately affected—but it is an invaluable tool in helping to tackle fuel poverty among the elderly.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Looking at the standard Library note on the issue, I am interested to see that the standard payment for the winter fuel allowance has been £200 and £300 since 2003, supplemented by one-off extra payments in the past three years, so the standard rate has remained the same. The right hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that in 2006-07 and 2007-08, that one-off payment was withdrawn and the amount paid was the standard payment of £200 and £300. Does he have any data about the increase in deaths in that period and whether there was a real effect of that money being withdrawn?

[Mr Dodds]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the standard rate, and of course when the Chancellor made his announcement about the winter fuel allowance earlier this year he did not dwell on it in any great detail. In fact, he passed over the issue almost completely, and we found out about it only in the small print. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it beggars belief that whereas it was thought okay to have the increase in each of the last three years, the Chancellor and the Government have chosen this year to cut the extra payments for our senior citizens, despite the anxiety that was expressed throughout the House just a few weeks ago about extremely high and rising energy prices across the country.

When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister on 2 November, he said:

“we have kept the plans that were set out by the previous Government and I think that is the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 918.]

I have listened to the Prime Minister and Ministers speak many times about their spending plans and what the previous Government did, but I do not think I have often heard them say that. On virtually every occasion they have said that the previous Government’s plans were leading to economic disaster, yet on this issue, and only on this issue, they pray in aid the fact that the previous Government were, they say, going to cut the allowance, and that it is therefore the right thing to do. Frankly, that is not good enough. I leave it to the Opposition to outline what their position was.

The Government have decided to maintain health spending at a certain level, saying that it needs to be ring-fenced. They have said that international aid spending needs to be protected, and that we needed to spend money to intervene in Libya. I have no difficulty with any of those things—I support them—but now the Government say that it is right to cut payments to our senior citizens, at a time when they are suffering from extreme cold and high and rising energy prices, because that was what the previous Government had planned. That is a shabby argument, and not one that bears any kind of scrutiny. The Government should stand on their own two feet, argue their case for themselves and justify it to the House and the country.

I want to pay tribute to groups such as Age NI for their work in Northern Ireland, and to Age Sector Platform, which has been very busy in recent months running a significant campaign called Fight the Winter Fuel Cut. Recently, a group from Northern Ireland led by Margaret Galloway, Michael Monaghan and Nixon Armstrong travelled to Westminster and presented the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), with a petition. Hundreds of people are signing that petition every day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I have not heard it said that the level of the payments made over the last three years was unsustainable. I have never heard anybody make that argument.

Let us be fair: the Government have made choices. They have decided, because of the economic situation and the deficit, to cut expenditure in certain areas. In other areas, they have decided to maintain or increase spending. That is the choice of the Government and the majority of the Members of this House; but do not let anyone pretend that the Government had no choice about winter fuel payments or that they had to do what they did. They did not have to do it: they chose to pick this area for cuts and not others. That is a reprehensible choice—a choice that is not justified either economically or morally. At a time of so many excess winter deaths among our older population, it is appalling that cuts should be aimed at that sector of our population.

[George Hollingbery]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dodds]

I am pressing to a conclusion now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in order to speak, as other Members will want to.

The winter fuel payment should be restored to the amount that was paid over the past three years. Indeed, I would go further and say that future payments should be indexed to reflect rising energy prices. After all, when the winter fuel payment was initially introduced, it paid over half the cost of an older person’s fuel bill, whereas the current level is nowhere near high enough to meet those bills. Our attitude to this issue goes a long way towards illustrating our attitude to the treatment of our older people throughout the country. I hope that the whole House will join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting the motion this evening, and I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Under the changes that we have introduced, more people suffering from cancer will be in the support group receiving ongoing unconditional support than was the case under the previous Government. The changes that we have made to contributory ESA are a direct consequence of the previous Government’s financial mismanagement. We have had to take some tough decisions on budgets, and this is one of them. We have formed the view that if people have other financial means available we cannot continue to pay them ESA indefinitely. That is a natural consequence of the failings of the hon. Gentleman’s party, not a choice we would have wished to have to make.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister reconfirm his commitment to examine whether people on oral chemotherapies should automatically be placed in the support group, rather than in the work-related activity group as they currently are?

[Chris Grayling]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have now received proposals from Macmillan Cancer Relief and Professor Harrington that contain some valuable suggestions and ideas. We have not finished our consideration, but we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Welfare Reform Bill

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me: I forgot about the experience in Scotland. What she describes is a classic example of what could happen. I am quite fearful, because I have been a councillor and I know about the pressures on local authorities when they expend their resources. If there are no clear guidelines or statutory duties placed on the authorities, elements of expenditure that the Government might have allocated with the best of intentions might not be spent in the way that the Government would want.

I am fearful that if people lose access to the scale of emergency support they currently draw on, their alternative will be to go to higher-cost lenders such as loan sharks, thereby falling into greater debt. Even in advance of the reforms, we have already had a number of pawnbrokers opening up in the town centre in my area, with the local citizens advice bureau reporting increased evidence of the use of loans from loan sharks. A number of organisations have expressed their concern that having numerous different local schemes could mean that we end up with—I do not like this phrase—a postcode lottery of access to life’s necessities, as a result of the loans not being distributed coherently and consistently. I am also concerned that local authorities seem not to have been given any guidelines or directives about establishing an appeals mechanism. Unless an appeals mechanism is set up, claimants will not have the security of being able to challenge decisions made locally.

I would therefore urge the Government not to abolish or wind down the social fund without giving an absolutely clear commitment about what will replace it. If emergency support is to be localised, we need strong, unambiguous and extremely clear statutory duties placed on local authorities to support vulnerable people, and for those duties to be attached specifically to such funding. I urge the Government to think again about ring-fencing, so that the money cannot be diverted away from the poor. The social fund commissioner proposed that the Government consider establishing national criteria for the schemes to be drawn up by local authorities, to ensure consistency in the use of local discretion. It would still be possible to reflect local circumstances, but national parameters would be set on the use of that discretion. I am also concerned that the devolution of emergency support services might create high administrative costs—this has been mentioned by a number of organisations, including Age UK and the Disability Alliance—which might divert funds away from provision for the poorest.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Would he like to comment on the observation made in the evidence that we received on the Public Bill Committee that the distribution of such loans nationally is very uneven in any event, despite a national body administering them? On that basis, would there not be some merit in distributing funds to local authorities on a needs basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government’s mindset is an old-fashioned one. There is an excellent case for making better use of recycled goods as a commercial or social enterprise facility, but there is also a strong empowerment argument for letting individuals make their own choices with cash at their disposal to meet their needs appropriately. As my hon. Friend rightly says, in many cases, the vision we used to have of a charitable sector simply opening a warehouse into which people can go to choose whatever donated goods might be available no longer applies.

[George Hollingbery]

I would counterpoint that on the basis that it is entirely possible to imagine a financial arrangement between the charity and the local council in which the council uses the funds provided for the purpose to future-buy services from the charity, giving people free access under certain circumstances to the products provided. There are many different ways to skin this cat; I can see these arrangements working perfectly adequately.

[Ms Buck]

The problem is that once we start creating a necessity for such an arrangement to be run at every single local authority, we will also create the potential for a mismatch between the goods that people need, the goods that are available, the charities providing those services and the area in which they are available. That also risks setting up a completely bureaucratic system in every single local authority to do what the current discretionary social fund does.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery]

I do not suggest for a moment that what I said should be a prescription nationwide. I said simply that it is easy to imagine an entrepreneurial solution that used the social fund to provide services locally that were administered by local councils but did not involve money changing hands.

[Ms Buck]

I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If he supports our amendment, I will accept his point. There is some truth in what he says: there is some excellent practice out there and plenty of innovation in the local government sector, but it is not consistent across the piece. The amendment effectively says, “Do not abolish the discretionary social fund without piloting or without allowing a proper ability for local authorities across the piece to demonstrate that they have the capacity to do what needs to be done”. The hon. Gentleman might well have enough confidence in that, but it cannot be guaranteed. At the moment, there is absolutely no assurance that a consistent level of innovation, expertise and commitment is available in some, let alone most local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with great passion. We must bear in mind the context in which this decision is being taken and the scale of resource that is involved. I have to say to him that we have found no evidence of great concerns about the practice of care homes and local authorities on the matter. The Minister has not presented any such evidence to us or to charities, and we cannot see where the great worry or cause for concern is.

[George Hollingbery]

I have just a small point. I think I heard the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) say that PIP was being withdrawn after the change from DLA. I believe the hon. Lady will confirm that we are talking about the mobility component, not PIP in its entirety.

[Margaret Curran]

If I made that mistake, I am very grateful for the opportunity to correct it. We are talking about the mobility component of DLA, which will be transferred to PIP. I will come on to broader concerns about PIP later, but I thank the hon. Gentleman.

I was talking about how the Government are addressing the issue of overlap and introducing a review. I assume that part of their concern is the need for greater consistency in how funding for people who live in residential care is arranged. I put it to the Minister directly that if there needs to be greater consistency in how the transport and wider mobility needs of residents are addressed, she should issue the appropriate guidelines to care homes. Whatever she chooses to do to address the matter, it is plainly wrong and irresponsible to make victims of the residents themselves by the blanket withdrawal of a benefit to which they are legitimately entitled.

The core of the argument, which should determine how we vote today, is that the power in clause 83 is necessary only if the Government want to remove payments solely on the basis that someone lives in a residential care home. If that is not the aim, we need to change the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a danger in all this of setting up a two-tier system for contributory benefit, which would be particularly unfair on those with slowly degenerative diseases, who fall out of work some time before they are classified as severely disabled and before the work obligation is taken off their shoulders.

[George Hollingbery]

Perhaps I misunderstand the hon. Lady, but I think that I am right in saying that if those individuals are reassessed a year or two later and found to qualify for the support group, contributory ESA is no longer relevant as they will automatically be in the support group in any case. Is that right?

Disability Living Allowance

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

I suppose that that is the overarching concern behind all this. Eventually, some money might disappear, and the question is who will pay it. That is unclear at the moment. Many years ago, I used to repeat endlessly to some of my more starry-eyed social work students that, “It is not as simple as that,” which is a general rule for politics.

I was a young social worker in the late ’70s. I have promised the Minister that I would not use a lot of Welsh, but, inevitably, I would like to make one little point. I used to take some of my clients out on social occasions to try to improve the quality of their lives, and the only practical way to do that at that time was by minibus. It was a big, yellow minibus, which said on the side, “Cymdeithas Plant Araf eu Meddwl,” which translates as the society for mentally handicapped children. Needless to say, the people with whom I worked were neither children nor mentally handicapped, which was a loaded term even then but, for the non-Welsh-speakers present, “araf eu meddwl” is even more loaded—it literally means “slow of mind,” so I was taking people out in a big, yellow bus that said that they were slow of mind. I would say, therefore, that social security and social and health provision have developed over the past 30 to 40 years towards a more normalised provision, based on autonomy and choice.

If we depend on institutions to solve people’s problems of mobility, we will soon get institutional answers, which is something we should avoid.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he not think that there is room for some standardisation or effort by central Government to ensure that those who are in residential settings and need mobility have at least some consistency of provision across the board? Surely, without that, there would be as much confusion as there would be otherwise.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The provision in the public and private sectors of residential care needs to be looked at, but should that be done by reforming DLA in the way proposed? Would that be a blunt instrument? Are there other ways that that can be done?

Welfare Reform Bill

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

That is deeply concerning, and I will dwell on it in a moment.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case on the detail—clearly a lot of it remains to be found, but this is a confusing and complex matter. Will he admit that the current system is unsustainably complicated? There are 8,600 pages of guidance on benefits administration at the DWP and 2,000 pages for local government, and there are 30 different benefits to administer. Change is required. If we have a framework and consult widely, we will have a better system.

[Mr Byrne]

The Opposition want welfare reform that sticks. When so many details are unclear, the danger is that the Bill will unravel progressively as it comes into effect.

We have discussed whether the Bill passes the test of fostering ambition for families and have shown that a great number of questions remain unanswered. Let us now consider savers. All hon. Members want to nurture the ambition to save. The amount that people must save for a deposit for a house is heaven knows how much, but now that tuition fees have been trebled, more families have to save harder to get their young people into college. One might have thought, therefore, that the Government would provide more incentives to foster the ambition to save, but the noble Lord Freud told the House of Lords that

“the £16,000 savings threshold would extend to all households eligible for universal credit.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2010; Vol. 723, c. WA204.]

There we have it. The Government are so keen to foster the ambition to save that once someone has £16,000 in the bank—the price of two and a half years at university—their tax and in-work benefits are taken away.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), who made a compelling speech. My contribution is likely to be more technocratic, but I pay tribute to his eloquence.

I pay tribute, too, to the Opposition, who have a real passion for this subject and, Government Members will all acknowledge, are more likely to represent constituents who are subject to the vagaries and whims of the benefits system. We must encourage them, however, to accept that our ministerial team cares equally deeply about this complex, difficult and challenging issue. It has introduced a broad skeleton of proposals on which to hang the detail. In my conversations with Ministers, it has been quite clear that they know that that detail is missing at this stage. Indeed, the Secretary of State has made it plain that there is more work to be done on particular areas, but change is certainly required.

There are more than 30 different benefits out there that can be claimed. There are 14 manuals in the Department for Work and Pensions, with 8,690 pages of instructions for officials. There is a separate set of four volumes for local government, with 1,200 pages covering housing and council tax benefits alone. That is an astonishingly byzantine system. One of my constituents, Nigel Oakland, wrote to me:

“Nobody at the Jobcentre Plus can explain if it is beneficial if I continue to sign on. The last advice I was given is that I should Google the question.”

In such a situation, where even the experts at Jobcentre Plus cannot answer the questions that arise, we are clearly in difficulty.

It is confusing for clients. There is a 30-page form for housing and council tax benefit, including three pages of declarations. Employment and support allowance requires a 52-page form; jobseeker’s allowance, 12 online sections, each of five to 10 pages long; and disability living allowance, a 60-page form. Is it any wonder that people become confused and fill in the forms incorrectly and make mistakes? The system is extraordinarily expensive to administer. The DWP spent £2 billion last year administering working-age benefits, and local authorities a further £l billion administering housing benefit and council tax benefit. Even the tiny citizens advice bureau in Bishop’s Waltham, a town of 5,000 people in a rural and relatively affluent part of Hampshire, processed 2,176 queries about benefits in 2009-10, advising people how to claim them.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), overpayments are rife, and I do not intend to rehearse the clear disincentives to finding work imposed by the benefits system, as that has been covered in some detail by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett). There is absolutely no doubt that with some work having a marginal rate of tax of 95%, there are powerful disincentives that prevent people from going out to work. The taper in the universal credit of 65% at least allows some certainty, so that every time someone goes out to work they can be sure that they will earn a reasonable amount and get a reasonable amount in their pocket.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) discussed the difficulties for self-employed people in the new system. Only yesterday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how that would be administered outside the PAYE system. He had a clear answer, and said that there would be mechanisms in place. In the present situation, my constituent Zehra Peermohamed wrote:

“For every £50 extra per week my new business may generate”—

a business that she started up herself—

“I would only gain an extra £4.81 of it to add to my overall income…It seems that there is little incentive for people in my situation who want to better themselves and not to rely on the benefit system.”

Whatever objections the shadow Secretary of State might have now, the existing situation is certainly no better.

Gemma Sword, a single mother with a child who has turned seven, says:

“In March…I started working part time 4 hours weekly over 3 days earning £96 monthly of which I was allowed to retain £80.”

From 15 November, she earned up to £150. Ms Sword continues:

“I was then transferred to Job Seekers allowance as my son turned 7 and was told that I can now only keep £20 of my monthly earnings”,

which did not even make it worth travelling to work. She was then told that she had to look for full-time employment but, to do so, had to leave her part-time employment. Those rules make no sense to anybody who looks at them carefully, and there is no doubt in my mind that there are powerful disincentives in the system to stop people going out and bettering themselves by finding work.

I do not want to spend a large amount of time examining the issue now, but we need sticks as well as carrots. There needs to be an understanding in the system that if someone does not perform as the system requires them to do in looking for work, they will pay a penalty in terms of the benefits to which they are entitled. Without that part of the mix, the new universal credit will not work.

I would love to examine in more detail the Work programme and its localisation, because the Communities and Local Government Committee has heard evidence that localisation will be peripheral. I would like to hear about the migration from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and in particular about the mobility component. I have talked to the Under-Secretary about that at some length and received considerable reassurances, for which I thank her. I would like more on the work capability assessment, the Harrington review of it and the ongoing review continually to refine that system and make it fairer and more equitable; and I also want to hear a little more at some stage and, particularly, in Committee about the appeals process and the proposed changes to it.

On the whole, however, this is a thorny, knotty problem, which the Government are grasping with some alacrity, and I for one will certainly vote for the Bill’s Second Reading.

Work Capability Assessments

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Natascha Engel]

That was exactly what I was going to come on to. Changing the description of the process from a medical assessment to a work capability assessment was welcome; it refers to what people can do and not what they cannot do. However, Atos has not moved away from an on-screen tick-box exercise. The number of people who come to my constituency surgery saying that they have been to a work capability assessment where the doctor has not even made eye contact with them is disgraceful. However, I am very worried about the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised. Up to 75% of cases taken up on appeal by the Derbyshire unemployed workers centre are successful, and the figure is 40% nationally. I recently asked the Secretary of State at DWP questions how many people that involves.

The errors that are already occurring will merely migrate to the new system. There has been no demonstration that there will be any underlying robustness. The numbers and the traffic involved will make things very difficult. I seek an assurance from the Minister about what people are saying anecdotally—I have no evidence for it—which is that there must be some kind of incentive: Atos is being told that it must get people off benefits. I want an assurance that Atos is not being told or incentivised to move people off incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance and on to the jobseeker’s allowance.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I am here to make representations on behalf of a client who has had to go to appeal. It is worth noting that the high level of appeal successes in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and of those that we heard of anecdotally from the hon. Lady may be a reflection of the capability of those who assess whether to appeal, as I understand that only 5 or 6% of assessments are successfully appealed. That may put a slightly different gloss on the figures.

[Natascha Engel]

It does, unless one knows the demographic of the group. A big problem for those who have been out of work for a long time is that it has a really awful impact on their self-esteem and even on their ability to get out of bed, as they can get very depressed. One problem for those who are moved en masse from incapacity benefit to jobseeker’s allowance is that they do not have the confidence to appeal the decision. It takes groups such as welfare rights organisations to help them. Of those who are helped, the number who are successful on appeal is an absolute disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I have told the mental health charities that I am happy to hear their proposals on how we can change the wording of the assessment to strengthen the way in which we deal with people with mental health problems. I am happy to look at such proposals and incorporate any sensible changes. I said to Professor Harrington and his team that I want them to bring forward recommendations on how to improve things and to knock off any rough edges so that we can make the system as fair as possible.

The majority of people—it is far from all—who are on incapacity benefit with mental health problems have issues with long-term chronic depression. We have a straightforward choice. We can either leave them at home for the rest of their lives—the hon. Lady mentioned that many people end up just retiring rather than ever moving off benefit—or we can try to do the right thing and help them back into work. I passionately believe that the second is the better option. In a moment, I will address the hon. Lady’s concerns about personalisation, because I agree with her on that.

What I am saying applies across the piste: we are either saying that we will leave these people passively on benefits for the rest of their lives, or saying that we will do something to help them turn their lives around. It may be that going back to work will involve them doing something different from what they were doing before. If, for example, they were doing a manual job and they had an orthopaedic problem, they may have to do something different, and that may be a huge wrench that damages their self-confidence. The hon. Lady was right to say that many people who are on long-term benefits have lost networks and self-confidence. I do not buy into the headlines that say, “They are all scroungers.” Hon. Members will not find me using such language.

The biggest issue is about detachment from the workplace. Some people who have been in work previously and who have become utterly detached start to lack confidence; they do not know what to do or how to go about getting work. Sometimes, people have grown up in an environment in which worklessness has been the norm, and they do not have the knowledge to be able to take the first steps into the workplace. Helping them not only with the assessment but over the hurdle of getting back into work is a huge challenge, and that is what our work programme is all about.

Let me touch on one or two of the other areas that the hon. Lady raised in relation to the assessment. Atos has no financial incentive to get more people through the assessment and back into work, nor would I countenance it having one. It is Jobcentre Plus that takes the decision and not Atos, and Atos does not design the test. The recommendations that we get from Professor Harrington’s review—as long as they are sensible, and I am confident that they will be—will inform our decision making about how the test should be shaped.

[George Hollingbery]

My constituent, Gary Dennis, was recently diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He went to his work capability assessment and passed with flying colours—he got zero out of 13. I understand the Minister’s reluctance to categorise any disease as one that should not be assessed through the WCA, because everyone needs the dignity of work if they can have it. None the less, there are diseases, such as motor neurone disease, that have particularly aggressive pathways. There is a case for emergency reassessment. Within six weeks of Mr Dennis’s work capability assessment, he was completely incapable of work. Will the Minister consider such cases?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me prior notice of his concerns. One of the things that I am happy to consider—I have said that we will carry on reviewing this process as we go forward—is some kind of emergency brake for people who suffer an immediate and very sharp deterioration in their condition. We should be able to reflect that, and I will ask officials to consider how we deal with such a situation. The goal is to do the right thing by people. What I do not want to do is say of any condition, “Nobody with that condition can ever work.” I do not want to give people an automatic path into the support group because where we can, and where circumstances enable us to do so, we should be trying to help people into work. Clearly, when things change rapidly, we need to see whether there is a way in which to address that.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. I welcome you to your position—I will just mention that I voted for you.

I applaud all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) in particular left me feeling somewhat inadequately prepared. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to a former Member for the seat whose constituents had a whip-round to pay his salary. It is beginning to feel a bit like that round here at the moment. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), whom I follow. She has left me quite a challenge.

First, I thank my constituents for sending me here. It is a privilege to be given the opportunity to represent them, and I give my assurance that I will do so to the very best of my ability. As a new Member with a new constituency, I am often asked where Meon Valley is. My constituency sits in the southern part of Hampshire, to the south and east of Winchester, and to the north and west of Portsmouth. It was made up of the bottom half of Michael Mates’s seat and the bottom half of Mark Oaten’s seat—that description has raised the odd eyebrow.

We take in the beautiful green lush Meon valley itself, with life revolving around small market towns, but the bulk of the population live in the south-east corner of the constituency, in Waterlooville, Cowplain, Hart Plain and Horndean. Living there are people I describe as bedrock Britain—many of them ex-services—the very engine of our country. Many of them are finding life increasingly difficult, a subject to which I shall return before I conclude.

The constituency contains many highlights, and given his well known evocation of the English countryside, the right hon. Sir John Major would be comfortable visiting us. In Hambledon, we have a village that can boast the first record of its cricket club in 1756. The club can claim to have given us much of what we recognise in the modern game, and was the focal point for the sport until the MCC took over in 1787.

As for beer, it is to be regretted that our major brewery, Gales in Horndean, closed after a recent merger with Fuller’s, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who spoke earlier. However, in Gladys avenue, Cowplain the fight-back has begun. We have many excellent ales, but I single out Michael Charlton, backyard brewer extraordinaire, who won last year’s Hampshire beer of the year with his majestic Havant Finished, produced in his garage. I look forward to launching Havant Forgotten with him in November, in aid of the Royal British Legion. As a Conservative Member with an active and dedicated association, I think it wise that the subject of old maids is probably best avoided.

Both my predecessors are hard acts to follow. Michael Mates enjoyed a highly distinguished career in the Army and for 36 years from 1974 sat on the Conservative Benches, serving with great distinction in many senior roles. Michael is an expert in diverse fields, but it is for his record in the House on defence matters and on Northern Ireland that colleagues will know him best—oh, and the Flanders and Swann.

As a constituency MP, Michael was no less well regarded. I have met countless people across the constituency whom he has helped. Aided by his long service and consequent connections, he unlocked bureaucratic logjams for many of his constituents.

Mark Oaten from the Winchester constituency is someone I am pleased to call a friend. Starting with a controversial two-vote majority at the general election in 1997—

[Claire Perry]

Gosh.

[George Hollingbery]

Two votes it was. In a November rerun—the first election I participated in—Mark converted those two votes to 21,500, which was not the most auspicious start for my political career. That figure stood Mark in great stead in following elections, not least against me. He held various prestigious positions in the Liberal Democrat party and made a contribution to the orange book—a tome whose pages are now more important than ever before.

More than anything else, Mark taught his constituents what to expect from an MP. Nothing was too much trouble for him. He accumulated a reputation as the acme of a local champion. If I can ever establish a reputation in Meon Valley as widely and deeply felt as Mark’s in Winchester I will truly have achieved something extraordinary.

I am delighted that the coalition has made clear its plans to return control of housing targets to local people, and has acted to restrict back garden development and to remove density requirements. It is incredibly important that all of us work to ensure that those changes are seen as an opportunity. We have been given the freedom to shape better communities that work for all our citizens, and to do it to our own design. But there is an obligation on us, too.

In a country as wealthy as ours, it is uncivilised that so many people are on housing waiting lists—some 3,500 in the Winchester district alone and another 3,000 in Havant borough. Those numbers are unsustainable. Most people in Meon Valley understand that and recognise that new housing is needed. Without the skirts of Government-imposed housing targets to hide behind, none of us should shirk the task of making that case to our communities. My experience, in Meon Valley at least, is that most people agree if the proper facts are laid before them.

Furthermore, under the auspices of the dreadful planning policy statement 3, far too many developments crammed affordable housing into flats and small dwellings so that central targets on density could be met—the perverse effect of central Government targets at work. In my view, communities with vision will now use the removal of those targets to build larger dwellings for those who cannot otherwise house themselves. A proper family home, with adequate living space and some privacy both indoors and outdoors, must be a fundamental ingredient of happier lives and less troubled, more contented communities. It is down to us and all our councillors to go out and make that argument. We can and should seek to persuade our constituents that it is in all our interests to do so.

Finally, let me say a brief word on a threat that we must all recognise. Among my constituents there are a great many people who, to their enormous surprise, find themselves in challenging economic circumstances. Most of them are in their 70s. They often own an asset, in their own homes. They have saved and accumulated pensions, but rarely are any of them more than modest in scope. Over the past several years, through a combination of low returns on savings, the lack of eligibility for state help, rising energy bills and, particularly, the cost of ever-increasing council tax, many of them are finding it very difficult to get by. Yes, they could sell their homes, but most of them already live in small dwellings and cannot practically downsize without moving away from their friends and family. Yes, they could use equity release schemes and enjoy a modestly increased income from capital, but many of them now struggle to find such products or, in fact, are scared of using them.

These people may seem asset-rich, but they are certainly income-poor. The asset that they strived so long and hard to obtain is now an impediment to getting any kind of help. We now face a future where many of those whom we would all regard as model citizens and who have paid much of the tax that allows the Government to function regard doing the right thing as a poor piece of advice to give to their children and wider families. That, surely, is something that we should be very concerned about.