Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that local authorities use the money that has been given to them to assist households when an extra contribution would be helpful. We have given a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to councils for that purpose, and we expect them to use every penny of it.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

19. Government changes already require the British taxpayer to find nearly £2 billion more to rehouse vulnerable families. How many families does the Minister think will need to be rehoused as a result of this punitive bedroom tax?

[Steve Webb]

I do not recognise that number at all. In fact, many of the scare stories that have come from the hon. Lady and others have proved not to transpire. When we capped rents in the private rented sector, we were told that there would be mass evictions and that vast droves of people would be moving all over London, but the evidence has not borne that out.

Benefits Uprating (2013-14)

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right that the coalition is making it pay to work. We are paying an increase in the state pension that is above inflation and above earnings growth. The figure he gives is right: someone retiring this year on a full state pension will get around £15,000 more over their retirement than they would get under the policies adopted by the previous Government.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, the Minister doth protest too much, methinks. He knows that the majority of our children who live in poverty do so in low-paid, working, not shirking, families. Those families are already experiencing serious difficulties in adequately feeding, clothing and, in some instances, even housing their children. In the light of the freeze on benefits, how many more families and children does he expect to be pushed into that—surely, in the 21st century—totally unacceptable situation?

[Steve Webb]

I hesitate to trade Shakespearian quotes with the hon. Lady, but to be clear, benefits are not being frozen, they are being increased. She is right on child poverty. The Government have not just stumbled across working poverty, because it was widespread under the previous Government, but it will be substantially improved by universal credit, which will make work pay in a way that it did not under the previous Government.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I will come on to that, because Opposition amendments 19 and 20 relate to it. As I said in my introduction, I shall deal with all the amendments in this group, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will explain our thinking on that matter later.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Minister has referred to the transparency of the current charges in the pensions industry, yet in his evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the gentleman who advised the Government on the matter—I regret that I have forgotten his name—made the point, which I am sure everybody in the House would endorse, that existing pensions provision is extremely cloudy. It is extremely difficult to know what the charges are, because the wording is imponderable in many instances. Why is the Minister so sanguine about what will happen in future? It certainly has not happened in the past, and it certainly is not happening now.

[Steve Webb]

There are two significant differences between past and future provision. First, we have established NEST, which did not exist before. It has been set up as a low-cost provider, so we have guaranteed that there is such a provider out there, particularly for small firms, which are the least likely to shop around. Secondly, there is a saying that pensions are not bought, they are sold. In other words, individuals tend not to go out and look for a pension but instead have one sold to them. In a world of auto-enrolment, the opposite is the case. Employers have a legal duty to select a provider, and that makes providers’ costs much lower. Rather than having to bear the huge costs of individual salespeople going out and selling to individual policyholders, employers will instead seek out providers. The costs of the whole process will be much lower, so that will be a significant step in the right direction.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I am going to try to cover about six topics in not very much time, so as to give everyone else a chance to respond.

Government new clause 2 has been tabled in response to our discussions in Committee, and will give the Government a power that I think previous Governments either thought they had or would have wanted to have. It is the power to cap charges for deferred members of qualifying auto-enrolment schemes. I think that is probably a relatively uncontentious power. Were we to bring it into force, that would clearly be the subject of separate debates and discussion in the House, but I hope the House will be happy that the Government should have that power.

Government amendments 15 and 16 are technical amendments to clause 14, dealing with what would otherwise have been a problem in section 30 of the Pensions Act 2008. Although that section currently allows employers to use a defined benefit, hybrid or money purchase scheme as an alternative scheme, it does not allow them to use a workplace personal pension scheme. Clause 14 corrects that omission, but there is a risk that an individual might be automatically enrolled into a personal pension scheme, and then required to pay contributions immediately for up to four previous years. The amendments protect individuals from that scenario. They correct what we believe to be an error in previous legislation. I hope that the House will find my explanation helpful, although I can go into far greater detail if threatened.

I welcome new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who serves on the Work and Pensions Committee. I believe that, in a rather intimidating fashion, it has been signed by pretty much all the Committee’s members, so I think I have to give it a fair wind. It is about what is known in jargon as the “open market option”—in other words, the fact that people often forget that when they save for a pension, they are doing two things. First, they are building up a pot of money—the accumulation stage—and then they are turning it into a pension, which is the “decumulation” stage. Those are two entirely separate processes.

All too often, someone can save with provider A—I will not use the name of a company—and think that they have to take their pension from provider A, which they do not. Broadly speaking, as a rule of thumb, it is estimated that the market can be divided into thirds. Roughly a third of people shop around and go somewhere else, a third of people shop around and stay with their original provider, and a third of people do not shop around at all. There is clearly a danger that at the crucial point when somebody sets their income for the rest of their life, they may not be getting the best value. The open market option reminds people that they can shop around, and indeed prompts them to do so. However, as I have just indicated, take-up of that option is not as high as we would wish, or as I believe the insurance industry would increasingly wish, so we need to do more.

I take new clause 1 as a probing amendment, and it is important in getting the issue on the table. As drafted, it would have one or two problems. It would bring some schemes within its scope that should not be, such as final salary schemes. Those are qualifying schemes for auto-enrolment, but we do not want to give final salary scheme providers a duty to tell people about their right to buy an annuity. That would not be appropriate. The new clause also duplicates some existing duties. For example, the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, as I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware, state that when members have the opportunity to select an annuity, they must be informed of their right to buy one on the open market. They must also be advised that there are different types of annuities available, which may have different features and different payment rates. There are also 1987 regulations that relate to contract-based business. So there are rules about the open market option, but I think we would all agree that they are not working as well as they should. I am sure that is the point of my hon. Friend’s new clause.

The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss the open market option. We believe that it is critical for consumers to think about the shape of annuity that is most appropriate to their circumstances and compare rates across providers. There are comparison websites available, which is a helpful development, but people have to know about them to look at them. They have to consider the option in order to know what questions to ask.

I am pleased to say that, in an example of joined-up government, we are working closely with our colleagues at the Treasury on the matter. I regularly meet my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who leads on it, to discuss the open market option, and we have a joint working group examining that very issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire will be pleased to know that earlier this year, we asked that working group to consider what is called a default open market option arrangement—in other words, whether we could make shopping around the default, so that people would have to make an active choice to stay with their current provider. There are practical issues to consider, such as what would happen to someone who failed to shop around, whether there should be a point at which their own provider paid them a pension, and what information people should have. However, the principle is attractive, and certainly my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is keen to go as far as we can.

Progress has already been made. One might say that a working group is often the last refuge of a scoundrel—not the Financial Secretary, I should add; I meant myself. However, this is a working group with teeth. To give one example, the Association of British Insurers, which has engaged actively with us on the matter, has already said that its members will cease sending out to people, with the letter saying that they can get an annuity, the application form from their own provider. They will stop saying, “You can shop around, but here in the same envelope is a form to get an annuity from us.” Instead, a person will actively have to say, “I want my annuity from you; give me a form.” That is a small step in the right direction, but I believe we need to go further.

I will be pleased to hear the arguments and concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, but we are certainly seized of the importance of this issue. We do not believe the new clause is quite the way to deliver what is needed, but the Government very much welcome it, and the spirit of what she is trying to achieve.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

On that point?

[Glenda Jackson]

Yes.

[Steve Webb]

Okay.

[Glenda Jackson]

I am extremely grateful that the Minister welcomes new clause 1, but with all due respect, he spoke earlier of pensions being not bought, but sold. He is now talking about the buyer being in the driving seat, but as we know full well, and as we see in the papers every day in relation to energy prices, people do not seem to have the capacity to shop around in their best interests. I do not think that the Government have had a great deal of success in encouraging companies to make the situation better. Will he learn from those mistakes, and will there be a better method?

[Steve Webb]

As I think I said a moment ago, we have asked the working group to look at making shopping around—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Lady heckles me, she might like to listen.

[Glenda Jackson]

I was muttering, not heckling.

[Steve Webb]

The working group will look at making shopping around the default situation. Somebody who does not actively choose to stay with their current provider will shop around by default. That is the difference between pensions and energy suppliers. Whereas people are stuck with their energy suppliers unless they choose to shop around, people will not get a pension unless they shop around. That is a pretty good incentive to shop around.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not; I have given way to her twice already.

New clauses 9 and 10 relate to the role of NEST, which I mentioned a moment ago. New clause 9 suggests that in a couple of years’ time we should review transfers into NEST, and new clause 10 suggests that we review contribution limits at the same time. It is worth reminding the House why NEST was constrained when it was established. There was a recognition that there is a market for big firms and higher earners—pension providers are willing to provide at a reasonable cost and to go to such firms. However, for small firms and lower-paid workers, there was a market failure. NEST was designed to fill that gap in the market.

First, the Government created a legal duty for firms to enrol people, so we ensured that there was something to enrol people in. That is what NEST is for. Secondly, we could have created NEST and imposed no constraints, and it could have been just another provider, but because we constrained NEST to consider lower-paid workers and smaller firms, it has innovated in an impressive manner. The previous Government envisaged such constraints. The Work and Pensions Committee has visited NEST and was positive about what it found. Forcing NEST to focus on lower-paid workers, smaller firms, and people who do not speak “pensions” or who are uninterested in them, has created impressive product, investment strategy and technological innovation, which is entirely welcome. Creating NEST with constraints was the right thing to do, and it has been beneficial.

State Pension Reform

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear link between the major reforms that the Department is introducing for people of working age and those that it is introducing for those who will reach pension age in the future. “It pays to work” and “it pays to save” must be the right combination.

My hon. Friend asked about pensioners’ savings. In a world in which we will enrol people in workplace savings, we need them to be confident that they will be better off when they save, and that is one of the specific purposes of the reforms. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any further points, I will certainly respond to them.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Given that the introduction of a single-tier pension will be available only to new pensioners, will the safety nets to which the Minister referred in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) include all the existing passported benefits, and will claimants still have to go through a means-tested system in order to obtain them?

[Steve Webb]

We are not changing the system for current pensioners at all. It will continue as previously budgeted. As for new pensioners, we need to think what paying a pension above the guarantee credit implies for passported benefits, and what sort of system we need. I should be interested to hear people’s ideas, because the issue is important. Hitherto, we have simply assumed that pension credit means poverty and that we must therefore make all the extra payments. We may need a more sophisticated system now, but the role of passported benefits is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but of course as soon as we do something for that particular cohort, another of people born a month earlier or later will say “That’s not fair”, and before we know it we will have delayed the change until 2020 at a cost of £10 billion. Although my hon. Friend asked his question in a characteristically beguiling way, I must tell him that there is no simple way of dealing with that one group.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that it is increasingly difficult for women over the age of 50 to obtain employment. Given the later pension age that the Government are introducing and the changes in employment and support allowance, women who find it impossible to obtain jobs may find themselves with no financial support at all.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point about the financial support available to the group concerned. In fact, about 70% of them are in paid employment, and that section of the labour market is doing better than other sections. We reckon that three in five of these women have built up occupational pension rights on which they will be able to draw before they reach the age of 66, and both ESA and JSA will be available in certain circumstances. A combination of sources of income will be available to them.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Thursday 10th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Westminster North in a second. One of the reasons why deficit reduction is so vital is that so many items of spending have become too large. Some of the concessions that we have talked about would be £100 million here or £500 million there. Very soon they add up to serious money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way in a moment. Landlords are quite clear that that is hugely attractive to them. It is worth shaving the rent for, and that is often all that it would take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting that context. During the course of this debate, one or two hon. Members have said that this is all about chasing the headlines in the red tops—the tabloids—and it is that that is shaping policy. Clearly, this is not a policy about a small number of extreme cases. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn says there are about 90 cases, but let me give one example. The top 5,000 cases of people to whom we pay housing benefit cost us £100 million a year. For 5,000 people to live in properties—

[Glenda Jackson]

It is not 5,000 people; it is 5,000 families.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady can have 5,000 families, but she is, I think, losing sight of zeros. For someone in the Department for Work and Pensions, £100 million does not seem such a big figure, but it is a colossal amount of money that is not providing value for the hard-pressed, low-paid taxpayer, who often does not live in brilliant accommodation. It is not a good use of £100 million.

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Lady knows, a lot depends on who takes those tenancies. If they are people who would have been in lower-rent social tenancies, the housing benefit costs will be higher, but if they are people who would have been renting in the free-market private sector, the costs could end up being lower. The numbers that she quotes are spurious.

[Glenda Jackson]

I want to know the Minister’s evidence for believing that landlords in the private rented sector will lower their rents. That certainly was not the finding of the National Landlords Association, which I mentioned earlier in the debate. Surely it is dependent on whether there is an excessive amount of empty properties, which, in a constituency such as mine, or any in central London, is an absurd premise. For all the properties concerned, there are many more people who are willing to take them on.

[Steve Webb]

I have a number of observations to make. First, the hon. Lady cited “evidence” that was not evidence at all, of course. It was a survey of the people who stand to lose from the policy, who mysteriously wanted to undermine the policy. When we talk to landlords’ groups—as we do—it is absolutely clear that direct payment is a prize for them. I hope that she does not argue with that statement. It is self-evident, blindingly obvious and common sense.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

Can I just respond to the hon. Lady’s points before giving way to her again? [Interruption.]

[Steve Webb]

I hope that I can just respond to the points that the hon. Lady has made.

[Glenda Jackson]

I did not make that point.

[Steve Webb]

Landlords clearly value direct payment. There is no doubt about that. It is common sense and stands to reason. I do not know if the hon. Lady accepts things that stand to reason, but it is patently obvious that landlords value direct payment. There is an economic value to direct payment. It offers certainty as opposed to uncertainty. That can translate into lower rent. If landlords have a choice between the rent that they previously charged with uncertainty about whether they get the money, and a slightly lower rent with certainty of getting the money, landlords will go for certainty every time. That is common sense.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

In a moment. The hon. Lady also said, “Where are all these properties? There is this massive, pent-up demand and these landlords will just go somewhere else.” If there is that massive, pent-up demand, why have landlords not already gone somewhere else? Why have they not already increased their rents beyond what housing benefit covers today? Why are they not already renting to non-housing benefit tenants? There is a reason why they rent to housing benefit tenants: they get the money, particularly with direct payments.

[Glenda Jackson]

Oh, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. The words “direct payment” never passed my lips and as I said in an earlier intervention, I would be grateful if the Minister could try to answer the questions that I put to him. Then there is the issue of why landlords are not renting to others outside the housing benefit sector. As I have pointed out, there is a growing trend that private landlords will not accept tenants whose rent is paid by housing benefit. In my constituency and contiguous constituencies, I do not see a massive increase in signs showing places to let.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I hesitate to bring facts into the debate, but the number of properties in the private rented sector with tenants on housing benefit, which the hon. Lady says is falling and indeed she also says that such properties are hard to find, has risen since November 2008—

[Glenda Jackson]

Where?

[Steve Webb]

Across the country. It has risen since November 2008 by 440,000. To listen to the hon. Lady talk, one would imagine that tenants on housing benefit cannot find anywhere to live. There are 1 million tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector. To listen to her, one would think that those people do not exist. Unfortunately for her, I am afraid that what she describes is at variance with the facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Okay, I shall give way to the other hon. Lady.

[Glenda Jackson]

I just wondered whether the Minister had the shared accommodation figures, and why hard-working taxpayers are not offended by HMRC allowing people to have tax breaks when they let a room.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The key is to try to stop people being unemployed for 12 months. He will be aware that 90% of those who come on to JSA flow off before the end of 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is bringing forward the Work programme, which will help the most hard-to-help groups before the end of the 12-month period to give them the maximum chance of not being in that position in the first place, which is our priority.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

There are already single parents in my constituency—not exclusively but in the majority female—who are experiencing serious difficulty in convincing employers that they must have flexible working to maintain their child care. What are the Government doing to ensure that employers are aware of their responsibility, given the draconian effects of the proposed reduction in JSA?

Housing Benefit

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Glenda Jackson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the beginning of this debate, he would not have been as ill informed as he is ill mannered. There are not people in my constituency claiming housing benefit at that rate, as I have had occasion to say. The majority of housing benefit claimants live in one and two-bedroom properties. We have already said that we would certainly introduce a cap, but not by the method that his Government propose. There should be a regional element.

[Steve Webb]

indicated dissent.

[Glenda Jackson]

From a sedentary position, the Minister is waving his hands in disbelief. This afternoon he was leaping to the Dispatch Box asking questions about what my party would have done if we had been in government. He knows, and I know, that if my party had been in government and his party had still been in opposition, and we had introduced the policies that he is supporting now, he would have fought them tooth and nail.

The Minister has absolutely no cover any more. As I have had occasion to say before in the House, his party has become the “30 pieces of silver” party, and nowhere is that more marked than in what it is proposing to do to some of the most vulnerable people in all our constituencies. I say to Government Members that the problem is not exclusively London’s; this will affect the whole country. When the second tranche of the Government’s approach to social housing comes in—the increase of rents to at least 80% and the removal of secure tenancies—the impact will run and run.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Glenda Jackson and Steve Webb

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Steve Webb]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will forgive me—

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Barking, who initiated the debate, but in the remaining seven minutes, I want to respond to some of the points made in the debate.

I want to correct a number of the inaccurate impressions that have been given. As the hon. Member for Westminster North said, it is a helpful focus in this debate—as distinct from our July debate, which was on the position of tenants—to ask about the position of the receiving local authorities. That is an entirely valid point. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the DCLG. We are working with the local government associations across the country to work out how best to support local authorities, which will face challenges; I do not dispute that for a second.

The allocation of the discretionary housing payments, which will be trebled from £20 million to £60 million, is part of the picture. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, one of the issues for people will be difficulty in securing deposits, and one of the things that discretionary housing payments can be used for is to assist people in paying for deposits. That is part of the purpose of the scheme. We have deliberately trebled that money and, although I cannot say anything definitive about the allocation of that funding, inevitably we shall want the money to go where the need is greatest, and inevitably that means that London will get a significant slice of that money. That is clear, and I think that it will help.

I want to question the description that we have heard of the private rented sector in London. I hesitate to do that in a room full of London MPs, but I shall give it a try. It has been presented as though it is an incredibly static situation, in which people live in communities for generations and it is always the same property, yet surely hon. Members would accept that there is massive turnover in the private rented sector in London. People move in and out of properties all the time.

The idea that there are static communities where any disruption will somehow undermine the community seems to me a parody of what is actually going on. The same applies to the suggestion that in the most expensive parts of London, there are mixed communities, with people at all income levels. The only people who can afford very high rents are the very rich and the very poor; there is nobody in the middle. The suggestion that we are somehow disrupting those terribly cosmopolitan, mixed communities is not true. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is not true. What can we do about the situation?