Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and David Ward

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Geraint Davies and David Ward

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I cannot see how, when the House is, understandably, trying to rebuild its reputation for various reasons, it will help its good name to rush through such important legislation without full consultation. I cannot believe that that will add to the general view of the House as a place that is worthy to give the deliberation that the Bill deserves.

The Bill is not an emergency measure, but it is leading to what could be a nasty accident. I believe and support the coalition agreement, which says:

“We will give parents, teachers, charities and local communities the chance to set up new schools, as part of our plans to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand.”

But that does not add to the state school system. Whatever the intention is, the outcome will be a fragmentation and a weakening of the state school system.

It has also been said recently that

“more choice for parents is a quintessentially liberal approach. This is an area where the state needs to back off.”

However, as we have heard before in the House, liberty without equality is a name of noble sound but squalid meaning. There is a difference between freedom and a free-for-all. In a free-for-all, invariably, the least articulate, the least organised, the least well represented, the least well-off and the least well educated tend to lose out.

It is important always, in whatever we do, to begin with the end in mind. What are we trying to do with our education system? We want, first, to raise the overall attainment of the young people who go through the system and, secondly, to narrow the gap in attainment in our system. The first issue is one of productivity and getting the most that we can out of the system, whereas the second is very much a political issue about narrowing the gap and seeing the importance, not just to young people but to the nation as a whole, of doing so.

There have been some extremely good contributions from knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate, so there is a danger of my trying to teach people to suck eggs, but let me put the issue in practical terms. There is a difference between things that are simple and things that are easy. To achieve well, a school needs a great head teacher, a great management team and great teachers. Then there are other things that help but that are less crucial, such as adequate resources. What resources are adequate will differ from school to school depending on the community that the school serves. Some schools will need more—hence the pupil premium.

A school’s buildings are quite important but not as crucial as some people think. One of my schools, Carlton Bolling college, where I am a governor—one of the schools for which the BSF proposals have been frozen—became an outstanding school not because of its buildings but despite them. It became the first secondary school in Bradford to gain an outstanding Ofsted categorisation because of the things that I have mentioned—a great head teacher, a great management team and great teachers. Schools also need excellent support services such as occupational therapy, educational psychology and speech therapy.

The governing body is less important than many governors believe. A terrific governing body with a poor head teacher will not mean that the school is successful in terms of achievement. A really good head teacher can get by with a governing body that is not so good—just don’t tell them.

[Geraint Davies]

At the end of last week, I was at a school that serves a challenged area in Swansea West. It was clear that the school’s relationship with parents, who often do not have a background of high achievement over generations, in building self-esteem for children is a key part of breaking out of intergenerational poverty. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one key issue is targeting resources on schools that serve challenged areas, rather than just having a free-for-all where middle-class parents grab what little is left of the cake from the Conservative Government?

[Mr Ward]

Hence the pupil premium. Parental involvement —my next point—is very important too.

There is nothing to stop a school having all the things that I mentioned. It does not have to be a faith school, a maintained school, an academy, a grant-maintained school or a foundation school. A point not previously raised, although I think the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) touched on it, is that everything that I have mentioned will produce a school with high achievement, but not necessarily a school with high attainment. There is a difference between the two.

As I said, it is simple to determine what makes a successful school, but it is not always easy. Apart from parental involvement, everything that I have talked about relates to school level variables—the school and what it can actually deliver—but pupil level variables determine attainment in the school. We seem to have common agreement about the need for a pupil premium to support schools serving deprived communities, but why not give it a chance in those schools? Is it not premature to look at the structure yet again, before we have seen what the additional funding can do to raise attainment in those schools?