Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I would never put out a message that people should not look for work, because work is vital to self-esteem, motivation and supporting one’s family, so I totally disagree with that statement.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The roll-out of universal credit will be complete by 2017, yet the contract for the Post Office card account will be up for renewal in 18 months. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that people will still be able to access their benefits through their post offices?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have looked at this matter carefully. The Post Office contract is due to expire in 2015, but there is the option to extend it and we will keep the matter under review. The Post Office is piloting a new current account and we hope that many people will transfer on to that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that those who are in the circumstances that he describes will always be properly supported.

Universal Credit

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

When I appeared before the hon. Lady’s Committee in July, I was very clear about the changes that were being made, and also about the fact that we would return to the Committee with the full roll-out timetable in the autumn once we had delivered it. That is what we were asked to do, and I will do it.

I am not being over-bullish about this. The fact is that it takes determination to drive a reform through. I have that determination, and the Department is determined to make this happen, with support and help. It is in all our interests for that to be done. We believe all those who have been charged to deliver it and who say that it can and will be delivered on time and on budget. I see no reason why that should not happen, and indeed the National Audit Office said that it was wholly feasible for it to happen.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The previous benefits system was confusing and unfair. Given that the Government are committed to resolving that problem, will my right hon. Friend tell us when a million people will be covered by the new universal credit system? That is what we should be aiming for, as a first step.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

All I can say is “at the earliest”, but we want to shift as many people as possible. I would rather think in terms of how quickly we can move people from tax credit and jobseeker’s allowance to universal credit, and I hope that that will happen well before the election. I expect big volumes to be running through, but we need to take our time in order to ensure that when we roll out the IT, it works properly.

I have made the changes that I have made in order to ensure that the system is delivered safely. I could have just let it run. I could have accepted the word of some people that it would be all right on the night. However, I did not. I took the job of making sure that we knew whether it was all right, and I have made the changes that are necessary for the delivery of the programme.

Disabled People

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Just a few hours ago, I was delighted and hugely proud to be with my constituent, Nathan Popple, as he received the award from Whizz-Kidz as this year’s Whizz-Kidz campaigner of the year. Nathan has shown incredible courage, determination and dedication, not just in organising this campaign but in speaking up on behalf of disabled people of all ages in Leeds. I am proud, too, to work with Whizz-Kidz and its inspirational ambassadors to ensure that the voice of disabled people of all ages, but particularly young disabled people who have so much potential, is heard.

There is, of course, a partisan element to today’s debate, but we all need to remember that what we all seek to try to do—we know that all Governments succeed in part and fail in part to achieve this—is to give all disabled people the opportunity to live, to work and to do the sorts of things that we all take for granted. We want all people, including people with disabilities, to be able to take those things for granted by providing them with the support that they need.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman was right and honest in what he said in his introduction. The facts in my constituency—and, I suspect, in many others—are that people are being turned down for employment support allowance and disability living allowance in greater numbers than ever before. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned “Groundhog Day”, but it is not “Groundhog Day” when it comes to the statistics, which show greater numbers of people affected. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the system needs to be reviewed so that those who need the benefits most are not restricted from receiving them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the experience of all right hon. and hon. Members is crucial; each and every one of us should be bringing constituents’ cases not only to this House, but to Ministers. That is part of how we learn.

Secondly, all Governments must be prepared to do full impact assessments of policies before they are implemented, as has been done, and then to review them constantly. I do not want the message to be sent out that the Government are afraid of doing that. We need a constant and ongoing review, and I hope we get that message. I have made that point specifically about the under-occupancy penalty, to give that policy its honest and factual name.

We have to accept that there were many flaws in the system inherited by the Government. Although undoubtedly well intentioned and in some ways positive, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 had flaws and did not always do the kind of things that we would all want it to do. It was right that it was reviewed.

The question that we should ask, and I hope we will all ask today, is not about whether reform was needed, because it very clearly was, but about whether the reforms are the right ones. We should be asking that question continually, and not from a partisan perspective on either side. Are the reforms working and delivering for disabled people? If and where they are not working, we should look into that. I have no problem in saying that and urging Ministers to review the situation on an ongoing basis.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the course of the debates about the Welfare Reform Bill, people predicted that a number of specific issues would be difficult. For example, there was an amendment suggesting that adapted properties should be exempted from the bedroom tax. Does the hon. Gentleman now regret that his party did not support those changes?

[Greg Mulholland]

I pay tribute to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was proud to be a member in the last Parliament. It has a vital role to play and I look forward to its ongoing reports, which should be part of the review of these policies.

The hon. Lady knows, having listened to me in debates on more than one occasion, that I personally felt unable to support the under-occupancy penalty precisely because there were not the sort of exemptions that I believed should be included. I thank Ministers for listening to at least some of my points and introducing further exemptions before the policy was introduced, but I would like more exemptions and I will continue to press for them.

During our last debate on the subject, I stood in this exact place—the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was probably very near where she is now—and said that the Government must and should commit to a review on the specific policy. We did get that commitment. There must be a review, which should be done not only through the Department for Work and Pensions but in conjunction with councils up and down the country, so that we get an open and honest assessment of how the policy is affecting disabled people.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I will give way one more time, as it is the hon. Lady.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. People living in a house specifically adapted for them have to pay the bedroom tax and therefore often have to apply for a discretionary housing payment. In most cases, they will get that payment into the future, which suggests that the payment should not be discretionary but automatic. Could the hon. Gentleman use that fact in his argument with Ministers about why those living in specifically adapted houses should be exempt?

[Greg Mulholland]

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Lady and it was a pleasure to serve with her on the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament, before she was Chair.

The hon. Lady knows that I have said that we should be discussing cases in which rooms deemed to be spare have not been spare. Some of those issues were dealt with in respect of the equipment needed and so on, and I was pleased with that. However, I feel that if discretionary payments are needed again and again and categories are established, those categories should warrant an exemption. I will continue to make that case and to push for a review.

In the limited time that I have left, I should look at some of the other issues covered in this broad debate, which the House should revisit regularly. It should discuss the issue at least twice a year because the situation is in a state of flux, which has been brought about, in part, by the economic situation and the need to look at the overall welfare budget, which all parties, including the Labour party, very clearly said needs to be reformed. We should also do so, however, to check on the positive reforms and make sure that these policies are indeed doing what we collectively want them to do. The Opposition were clear that DLA needed reform; indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that.

To respond to a point made earlier, it is very important that the wrong messages are not given out today, because the reality is that overall spending on personal independent payments and DLA will be higher in real terms in every year up to 2015-16 than spending was on DLA to 2009-10. This is not about seeking to reduce the welfare budget, therefore; instead it is about directing it at people who need it, and looking in particular at what people can do and genuinely empowering them, rather than judging people on what they cannot do.

Does that mean PIP will be absolutely perfect in a way that DLA was not? Of course not, and we all have to accept that every single change to any benefit will have implications and consequences, and it is right that we should look at them, but simply to use this debate as an opportunity to bash the Government on policy fails to achieve what I hope is the Opposition Front-Bench team’s intention: to say we must be looking on an ongoing basis at the impact of these policies.

I want to hear from Ministers today that they are not in any way afraid of having a review and that there must be a constant review of all policies in this area. My position on the motion is that I believe we should have a proper assessment, but that we should have one next year. That is my position simply because the big change from DLA to PIP is being introduced this year. I do believe we should have a review, however, and I hope we hear that from the Minister, too, so we do not send out the false message that we do not want a review.

Remploy

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

As the hon. Lady says, we are working on the Work programme and taking huge strides forward, and I am looking at the specialist disability support such as Work Choice and how to reshape it to make it even better.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

In the last Parliament we on the Work and Pensions Committee looked at the Labour Government’s decision to close a number of Remploy factories, and I have to say that the collective amnesia of Labour Members, which was most ably demonstrated by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who oversaw the closure of Remploy factories in Wales when he was Welsh Secretary, is extraordinary. The people concerned is what is important here, however, so can my hon. Friend the Minister give us a sense of the additional disabled people who could be helped into work as a result of these changes?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question: how many more people can be helped into work, and into mainstream work? That is what we are doing. We now have £350 million to do that. We have got to look at what works, get value for money and support as many people as possible.

Pensions Bill

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. I had the pleasure to serve alongside her throughout the last Parliament when we were both members of the Committee. Together with our Committee colleagues, we wrestled with many issues, including pensions. I am delighted she is now in the elevated position of Committee Chair and is continuing to demonstrate to the House the importance of the Select Committee system. It brings expertise to bear on subjects, both through the members who take a particular interest in a set of issues and the staff who support Select Committees so well and provide them, and therefore the House, with real expertise and analysis. I hope that that continues throughout the passage of this Bill.

I am delighted to welcome the Second Reading of this hugely important Bill. It is hugely important for both now and the future, and also for the country as a whole, not just our older citizens. The state clearly has an obligation to our older citizens; that is something that, despite our political differences, each and every Member of this House strongly believes. I concur with the hon. Lady’s comments about the continuation of a state pension for all in this country, and I am delighted that, across the political spectrum, we continue to believe in that.

That is not only an obligation, however; it is also financially sensible. It makes financial sense to have a simple state pension that gives people not only a fair basic level of income in retirement provided by the state, but certainty as to what the state will provide in their retirement. That entails certainty about what they need to do in respect of their income throughout their working life, which will, of course, fluctuate, in order to add to the amount and get to the levels of pension income they would want. The simple reality is that the current system is not sustainable financially, is far from universal and in many ways is simply unfair.

I am delighted that Members on both sides of the House with an interest in pensions issues have welcomed the principles of this Bill, and that many have welcomed the practical details, too. I must say, however, that I am proud that my party, the Liberal Democrats, have championed this for a long time. The pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has led us to this day and the publication of this Bill, and he knows, as I do, that the Liberal Democrat party as a whole passed our policy of a citizen’s pension back at our federal conference in 2006, and that that has become the blueprint for the single-tier pension presented in this Bill.

Such a pension was also at the heart of our manifesto in 2010 as one of the key things we would want to introduce if we were in government, as we now are. Our manifesto said we were committed to

“immediately restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings”,

as well as moving towards the kind of pension we have today.

I am glad other Members have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, and I join in those congratulations. He has shown his dedication, remarkable intelligence and expertise throughout the introduction of this reform, and I hope he will continue to lead on it. It is notable that he is already by some margin the longest-serving pensions Minister we have ever had in this country, and I hope he manages to add to that record with at least another period of the best part of two years as we take this important reform through.

Why are the Government doing this? Indeed, why are Members on both sides of the House aware that we have to make changes, as the Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, made clear? I shall tackle the controversial issue first: we have not grasped the simple reality that for some time there have had to be changes to the retirement age. That has been ducked, which is understandable, as it is never going to be easy or popular, but it can be ducked no longer. The state pension age has been 60 for women and 65 for men since the 1940s. There has also been a strange and institutionalised form of unfairness between the sexes, and it is right to tackle that, particularly as we have known for some time that men have a slightly lower average life expectancy than women.

The reality is that our population is rising most quickly in the oldest age groups. The pensioner population is projected to increase from 12.2 million in 2010 to 15.3 million in 2035 and 18.3 million by 2060. Cohort life expectancy at age 65 is projected to increase from 21.0 in 2010 to 24.0 in 2035 for men, and from 23.7 in 2010 to 26.6 in 2035 for women. The Government estimate that even now almost 11 million people in the current work force face inadequate retirement incomes. The number of people currently saving in an occupational pension scheme has fallen from a peak of just over 12 million active members in 1967 to 8.2 million in 2011.

On unfairness, under the current pension system, the self-employed cannot get any more than £107.45 in basic state pension, despite the means-tested threshold being set at £142.70. More significantly perhaps, as this applies to everyone, at present some people—130,000 people in fact—get as little as £7 a week or less in basic state pension, while the same number of people get £230 or more a week. It is complex, it is not fair and it is not sustainable.

Let us look at the key groups and the need for reform. The first and most obvious change, and in many ways the most welcome, is what the reform will do for women. The single-tier pension will give a better pension to women, and it will clarify for them—as it clarifies for all pensioners—what they will receive from the state. The terrible reality is that under the current complex state pension system, on average women receive £40 less per week than men. The single-tier pension is, at its heart, devised to address that inequality, and also to count fully time spent out of work caring for children, which applies predominantly to women.

Secondly, I have mentioned the self-employed; across the political spectrum, we pride ourselves on recognising the importance of our self-employed and applauding the contribution they make to our country. They drive the local economy, contribute to the national economy and pay tax, yet they are so disgracefully discriminated against in the current pensions system. I warmly welcome the fact that that is being rightly recognised.

One healthy thing about the broad consensus on the need for reform and on the principles of that reform is that we can—I hope—have more thorough, positive and helpful scrutiny of the Bill. I echo the Select Committee Chair’s comments about the need for support from across the House to enact changes of this nature. At the same time, we should rightly ask the difficult questions and challenge every clause. The hon. Lady and her Committee have started that process, doing so at the pre-legislative stage, and it needs to happen throughout the passage of the Bill, with expertise and dedication coming from all who serve on that Committee.

Constituents have come to me to discuss the issue affecting women born between 1952 and 1953, which has been mentioned by hon. Members. I have spoken to the Minister about it, and I know that he and colleagues have examined it. I urge for much better communication on the issue so that we can ensure the Bill is as fair as possible. Perhaps the most telling thing that the Chair of the Select Committee said is that this matter will continue to be complicated; it will be all the way from now until we get to the stage at which citizens of this country know, from now, “I will have this pension when I retire.” All the other people in between will, by definition, have to go through the transitory arrangements.

I warmly welcome the work that the Minister, his colleagues and the civil servants have done to tackle the enormous complexities of dealing with the different systems and the transitional arrangements to make sure that what we have is fair, so that people who have contributed in different ways and have certain reasonable expectations of income will not be penalised. This will get simple in the end, when we reach the stage at which every citizen in this country knows precisely what the state will provide for them in old age, so they know exactly what they have to do. They need to be signposted to the correct advice on how they build up other forms of pension. I warmly welcome the work on auto-enrolment.

[Ian Swales]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and persuasive speech. Does he recognise the point I made earlier about communication? Does he also recognise that certain cohorts need to be given clear information very quickly, as there are women born in 1952 who will be pensioners by the end of this year?

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend was right to raise that point, which was echoed by the Chair of the Select Committee. I am slightly worried that the letter she received sounds not to have been as clear as we would hope—that might be a euphemism. Given that all this good work has been done by civil servants and Ministers, we need to ensure that the communication to citizens of this country is better than it sometimes can be; things can be let down at that stage. There must be proper communication with all the different cohorts of people in their different situations, and that needs to take place as soon and as clearly as possible.

In conclusion, this is a historic day. I warmly welcome the principles of and measures in the Bill, and the way in which it has been handled. I look forward to contributing throughout the passage of this historic Bill, which will give people in this country the certainty, simplicity and fairness that all in this House would demand of a state pension system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Before I come to the substance of the Bill, I want to make one point in response to the Opposition on the supposed break in the link from earnings to prices. History is mis-remembered. Labour would like it to be considered that, in 1979, the Conservatives broke a long-established link that had been part of a golden age, but that is not the case. The 1974 to 1979 Labour Government changed the link from prices to wages when wages were not keeping up with prices. In addition, they had a four-month transitional period between July and November 1975 when pensions were not linked to anything. Four months might not sound like much, but in 1975, inflation hit a peak of 27%, so not linking pensions to anything for a four-month period significantly hit pensioners, who did much worse under that Government than they did either in the 18 years of the following Conservative Government, or in the 13 years of the Labour Government, who did nothing to change the system they liked to attack.

I initially approached the Bill from a position of significant scepticism. I am not, in all matters of Government policy, naturally a cheerleader. I was concerned that the Bill was a big redistributive Government policy, and was worried that it might take away from those who had paid in most over their working lives. I have been convinced in part by the knowledge of my hon. Friend the pensions Minister—if I may call him my hon. Friend—and how he has presented the case, and in part by the Work and Pensions Committee pre-legislative scrutiny. In addition, the more I have worked to understand the Bill and as my understanding has increased, so has my enthusiasm. I would like to put on record my thanks to Djuna Thurley of the House of Commons Library, who has answered many of my technical questions, allowing me to respond to constituents’ cases in a bespoke manner, which in most instances satisfied the individual concerned. Her work has helped them and me to understand what is proposed in the Bill.

I wondered whether the Bill would take money away from people who have paid a lot in. Yes, such people are better off, but they have contributed a lot through national insurance, and I questioned whether they would suffer to pay for others and whether there would be a big redistribution from those who have contributed. The answer to those questions must be no, because existing accruals are protected—that is the key protection. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), but when he mentioned a lady from Port Glasgow, he did not make one important point. Her accruals—whatever she has built up under the existing system, which I understand might not be that great because of the difficulties he described—will be the same under the new system and are protected. It is important to understand that the Bill does not take away from those who have contributed and give it to others.

Another key reason I am in favour of the Bill is that it seems to reverse the usual distributive trend and burden of Government tax and spend initiatives. The losers are always much noisier about their losses than the gainers are publicly grateful for their gains—I cannot be certain that there will not be a reversal of that or a degree of change as the Bill passes. Those who benefit from the existing system do not much appreciate it and very often are not aware whether they will gain or get any pension above the basic state pension, despite contributing under the current state second pension and, previously, the state earnings-related pension.

On the other side of the equation, it is obvious to those who will gain that the single-tier pension will be higher than the existing one, and that, although it will be taxed, they will be able to keep everything they put aside on top of it, which is a great benefit of the Bill. My concern, if anything, is that there might have been a degree of communications failure, because quite a lot of people believe that, when the transition happens—it will happen in 2016 rather than 2017—they will suddenly get the great benefit of the single-tier state pension and do a lot better than they would have done had they retired a little earlier.

So far—this plays into the usual way of gainers and losers in such things—I have largely had complaints from people who think that they will just miss out on the benefits of the single-tier state pension and that it will benefit those who are a little younger than them. I have been able to explain that that will not be the case—there will not be a cliff edge. When I explain that all it will mean is that the person who is a little younger than them will have the opportunity gradually to build up entitlement under the new single-tier pension over time—for instance, gaining £4 or £5 of accrual per extra year of working—they understand that and think it is perfectly reasonable.

I caution the Minister about the other side of that coin. I wonder whether a lot of constituents think that they will receive a big gain in 2016 and so have not come to us to complain. They may well come to us if, come 2016, they have expected a big gain and it suddenly does not materialise. It would be helpful if Members of all parties, commentators and reporters made that point clearer.

I have one technical question for the Minister, and I have worked hard to understand it. The White Paper was clear, as far as White Papers go; there were a lot of great examples with lovely diagrams so that, by the time I got to the end, at least I thought that I understood. On the transition, for people who currently decide to put off retirement and earn a greater state pension—I am not sure whether every 10 weeks equals 1% or whether the rules have changed, but it is something like that; my impression is that it is a reasonable deal and a good thing to take advantage of, particularly for women with higher average life expectancy. I understand that the opportunity to buy extra pension will still exist, but that there will be a less generous, different system. In his concluding remarks, will he wrap up one point for me? If someone is taking advantage of that system before the transition and is receiving extra pension and wants to continue doing so after the transition date, will the old rules or the new rules apply to that individual?

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is not in his place, but I would like to turn to his remarks. I was quite taken aback by them. There was the glass half empty issue, which we have discussed. I think he agreed that the proposals were better for women, but he raised concerns—as others have—about women born between 1951 and 1953. That issue is the product of the equalisation of the pension age, not of the Bill. In addition, as I understand it, the women concerned have lost out most compared with what they may have previously expected—although the coalition Government have mitigated some of the worst of that. However, I believe it is still the case that they will retire earlier than men of the same age, and, on average, they will have longer life expectancy. They are losing out relative to expectation, but there are those two positives—one by virtue of nature and medicine, the other by virtue of policy.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead launched a great attack on our proposals for the self-employed. He seemed to think that it was some kind of—I will not use the word scam—initiative by the Minister to shovel benefits to all self-employed people who, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are almost entirely Liberal Democrat supporters. I am sure that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches would be delighted were that so. In Thornbury and Yate and in Leeds North West they may have MPs who have told us about people who work in that sector. Overall, I strongly welcome what the provisions will do, because of their simplicity for the self-employed. In a sense, a self-employed person runs their own company, yet still pays national insurance through two classes as if they were an employee, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate. The self-employed were not receiving the benefit from the state second pension, which seems inequitable and it is good to reform that in this way.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and informed speech. Does he agree that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead cannot have his cake and eat it? Either we believe in a fair pension for all—including carers, women and the self-employed—or we do not, and he is fudging the situation. Surely, we want a citizen’s pension for all.

[Mark Reckless]

I agree broadly with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that it is fair to accuse the right hon. Member for Birkenhead of fudging, as he is not in his place to defend himself. Certainly, on some issues he has said things that for many are unpalatable, and he has not been shy of spelling out the consequences in some scenarios. I just disagree with what he said about the Bill and women—the Bill will improve matters; it is not the Bill that is creating the difficulty for those in the 1951 to 1953 group—and with what he said about the self-employed. Mostly, I took exception to what he was saying on the latter.

I was astonished that—I assume that he does not speak on behalf of the Labour party on this issue, but perhaps he is doing so—the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Bill was terribly unfair because it would not cut pensions further for those in the public sector, compared with those in the private sector. That is a courageous thing for a Labour Member to say. It may be that the National Union of Teachers, from which we have heard, will be writing to him about the policy he is urging for his party.

The Government have undertaken significant reforms to the various state pension schemes which were chronically insufficient under the previous Government. We have taken significant action on a number of different schemes. Like many other MPs, I have met a lot of policemen and policewomen at my surgeries who are very upset about the reforms, but I try to explain to them that their pensions are still far better than those for the vast majority of people who live in my constituency.

The cost of state pension schemes, in particular the extra paid in versus what is coming out to the Exchequer, will continue to increase strongly. Whether that has put those schemes in a sustainable position might remain a subject for debate, but people with such pensions have had significant increases in contribution rates. I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead when he complains that the private sector will be able to reduce benefits because of the reduced amount going in, but that the public sector will not, when so much has already been done in the public sector. We have taken the issue of the various public sector schemes separately and we should continue to address it on its merits, rather than through the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The tribunal has published a list setting out the reasons appeals are successful. In most cases, it is a consequence either of oral evidence presented at the tribunal or newer evidence being presented.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Minister will be well aware that there have been issues of public confidence in Atos ever since it was first commissioned to do this work by the last Government. Are the Government looking into and making progress on Professor Harrington’s alternative assessment process for those with hidden and fluctuating conditions, which is a very important area?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As a consequence of Professor Harrington’s recommendations, we are considering a range of different descriptors. We are working closely with medical experts and charities to assess those descriptors and will report later in the year on the effectiveness of the programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have made discretionary payments of £5 million available for foster carers to ensure that that does not happen. The effect for foster carers, as we move forward, will be that they will not have to change the number of rooms or their property as they will be able to remain there and to foster. That is what the policy will be.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have acknowledged that some of the spare rooms are not spare by acknowledging the need for discretionary housing payments. May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether some of those categories could and should be covered by genuine full exemptions?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I have just explained, one of those categories—severely disabled children—is covered and the guidance coming out tomorrow will make it very clear that we will apply that judicial judgment across the board to children with severe disabilities who need that extra room as they are unable to share. I shall keep everything under review and I guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will ensure that the intent of the change is bound up in how it takes effect in so far as the spare rooms will be kept for those who need them. Honestly, however, when so many houses have spare rooms and when so many people are in queues to get housing, it would seem wrong to go on subsidising everybody to stay the same.

Universal Credit

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate, although I feel like something of an interloper. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the previous Parliament, I hope that the Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and her colleagues will be happy that I am contributing.

Let me start by paying tribute to the Committee and the Chair for the hugely important work they continue to do. It is quite right, because of the hugely significant nature of these reforms—we can all absolutely agree on that—that they should have the full and continual expert scrutiny of the Work and Pensions Committee, involving both the MPs and the staff. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and that is quite right.

One of the big, thorny issues that we discussed on a number of occasions in the Committee in the previous Parliament was the over-complexity of the benefits system, which we said needed to be addressed. The report that we published in July 2007 said that

“our current benefits system is stunningly complicated…simplification should be a key priority for the DWP…We believe there are opportunities for merging some benefits, aligning the rules of eligibility and, where means-tests are necessary, the information required from claimants.”

Therefore, while praising the Committee for its scrutiny, the issues it has rightly raised and the points on which it has rightly challenged the Government, we can be in no doubt that, when scrutinising the Government in the past the Committee was clear that there had to be reform. Indeed, Ministers including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) told us during that Parliament that they agreed that there had to be some simplification and that the issue had to be addressed. I think that we all can, or should, agree on the principle. Of course, the devil is always in the detail and it is right that any reform—not just one as significant as this—is fully and properly scrutinised. That is why I welcome the information that the Government have provided in response to the Committee and the fact that we are having this debate and that the Committee will continue to push until its concerns are satisfied.

We have to remind ourselves that the reform is designed primarily to simplify the benefits system, which has to be done. The other big issue that we continually raised in the Committee during the previous Parliament is that we need to do more to incentivise people to work and to make work pay. There was cross-party agreement and, indeed, ministerial agreement from the previous Government that it was essential to ensure that benefits were sensibly targeted.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember our trip to the university of York, where we sat through a number of interesting and detailed presentations. We looked at mind-bogglingly complicated graphs of the current benefits system and the tapering. We were told by academics who were more expert on this than we could ever be that, without significant change and proper tapering, the cliff edge would continue and too many people who want to work hard would find that it did not make sense for them to do so when they could earn similar amounts from benefits, which is a choice that they do not want to have to make. That is the thrust of what the Government are addressing.

It is also important to say that this is not a cost-cutting measure. As the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has said, it will not save money for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is not designed to do so. The Government estimate that it will cost £2 billion more to ensure not only that universal credit supports the people who need support—which is, of course, the primary purpose of any benefits system—but that it has smooth and transparent incentives to work. It will, however, lead to longer-term savings for the taxpayer, because it will make work more financially beneficial. That will also benefit the Treasury, because those people will then pay their taxes and be part of society by contributing in the way that they would wish.

The Committee has been right to challenge the Government on the issue of those who will gain more and those who will receive less as a result of universal credit. Ministers have made it clear that they believe that 3 million families will be better off and that 350,000 children and 500,000 working-age adults will be taken out of poverty, while acknowledging that 1.4 million people would see a drop in income were it not for the transitional protection, which is why that protection is so important. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also estimates that 2.5 million people will be unaffected.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there will always be a system for looking after those people who actually need help with this benefit?

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely. During the previous Parliament, there was consensus on the Committee, in the House and, indeed, among Members on both Front Benches that we need to do more to ensure that the benefits system is targeted on those who need it most and that it makes financial sense for those who can and want to work—whether that be full or part time, as appropriate to their other commitments—to do so. No one is suggesting that that is an easy challenge—it certainly is not, as the Committee fully acknowledged during the previous Parliament—but it has to be taken on and I am delighted that the Government have chosen to do so. It is also crucial to ensure that lessons are learned from the pathfinders. I remember looking at some of the pilots in the previous Parliament. It is essential that, during the implementation stage, the Department always takes full heed of the lessons and then makes changes as appropriate.

I want to comment briefly on a few of the issues that the Committee has rightly focused on. We can all agree that it is essential that universal credit works for everybody—for all claimants, not just the majority. It would not be a success if a group of people were significantly disadvantaged by its introduction, which is clearly not the Government’s intention.

On the move to a single monthly payment, I do not think anyone would disagree with the principle that it makes sense for people to have a sense of the money that they are given, to enable them to pay their rent and buy food, and that it is helpful for them to budget, as that will equip them to do so when they find work, as we all hope they will if they are able to do so. The Committee was right, however, to raise its concern that the switch to a monthly payment presents a significant challenge for people and families on a low income, and the Government have rightly responded to those concerns.

The biggest concern, which also involves landlords, relates to direct payments. That is not to say that the arrangements will be a terrible thing in all circumstances. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember that we had exactly the same conversations when the local housing allowance was introduced. We must accept that, although the arrangements will work for some people, there must be a swift acknowledgement in cases where they are not working, before huge arrears can build up. Will the Minister clarify that such a safeguard will be put into the system, so that if things start going wrong, alternative arrangements can be made as swiftly as possible? Those could involve direct payments to the landlord, fortnightly payments or the splitting of payments. I will be interested to hear a reinforcement of the Government’s response to the Committee on that matter.

On the digital question, I believe that it is perfectly sensible to move to an online benefits system. That is happening throughout the welfare system and throughout many parts of the public sector, and it will result in a welcome reduction in costs, as long as we get the IT right. I am now a member of the Public Administration Committee, and this is a matter that the Committee will be looking at, following the publication of its critical report on the disaster of the NHS IT system.

People have rightly expressed concern, however, about those who do not have access to the internet. Many of those on low incomes might not be able to afford the necessary technology—a PC or a smartphone, for example—and older working people who are approaching pension age might never have had any experience of that technology. The Committee has therefore rightly pushed Ministers on this point, and alternative provision has been made, including contact by phone or in writing, or through a home visit. It is right that that should be spelled out so that we can be clear what will happen to those people who cannot reasonably access the internet. I urge the Minister to keep that matter under review, particularly when the pathfinders begin.

My final point relates to information. Any change in the benefit system will lead to anxiety for people even, ironically, when the changes could have a positive effect on them. It is therefore essential that they should be provided with clear, simple and adequate information, and signposted to where they can get advice. That also applies to MPs, because we have all had people asking us for advice on the effect that the measures will have, and we should have at our fingertips all the knowledge we need to advise them as the changes come in.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is also a member of the Select Committee. He regrets being unable to be here today for family reasons, but he is very much here in spirit. He was keen to take part in the debate. He also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Citizens Advice. The citizens advice bureaux clearly have a role to play in this context, and he and the group have called on the Department for Work and Pensions to work with Citizens Advice to produce an information leaflet on universal credit. It is the ideal organisation to do that. I understand that, having written to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend has now been told that the DWP will indeed pursue the matter with Citizens Advice. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case, because that would be a positive development.

In conclusion, this is a huge challenge, but one that would have to be confronted whichever Government were in power. This is a principle on which we can, I think, all agree, without necessarily having to agree on all the detail. I welcome it, but it is crucial to get it right between now and October. I urge the Government to keep the matter under review and then to be flexible if the pathfinders show that further changes are necessary to make it work in the way that, in the end, we all want—to support people who need it and to encourage people to get back into work when they are able to do so.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I just do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It’s great, isn’t it? In government, they wanted to take the credit for everything, but in opposition they do not want to take the blame when things then go wrong. They negotiated the treaty, so they bear the responsibility. I have to pick up the pieces, and we are going to do that. Under universal credit, we will hugely tighten up on self-employed people, shutting the door to many of those whom he allowed to come in and claim benefits in the first place.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is right to seek to deal with what is clearly a wholly unsatisfactory and confusing situation, but does he agree that some people are seeking deliberately to misrepresent the current reality and so are fuelling fear, which can lead to prejudice and hatred? Does he agree that we need better information about the situation?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would simply make the point that we have to deal with the reality. Our system does not deal with the problem of people coming here solely to claim benefits. We are always keen for people who have something to add to come to the UK and add their talents and skills to help us build the economy—that has always been the principle—but we do not agree that people should find an open door and a way of coming in just to take money to which they never contributed. That is the key issue. I agree with his point, but responsibility rests with those who used to defend, but now spend their time attacking, the very position they created.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Greg Mulholland Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I can see the attraction of that approach, and I think there is a balance to be struck. The attraction of the approach for foster families would be that the size criteria could be defined and then categories of people such as a couple, teenage children and so forth could be added to the list. We could say that a bedroom used for a foster child is a bedroom, so no deduction applies, people do not need to go to the council for the DHPs and the Department for Work and Pensions rather than the local authority would meet the bill. That is one way of doing things.

The challenge for us in that approach is defining in Whitehall all the categories of people who ought to have a room. There could be difficulties even within a category, as there might be foster carers, for example, for whom this is more or less of an issue. It could vary from case to case. We have to make the judgment: where do we need to make a blanket exemption or a blanket entitlement to a room, and where do we say that we will give the local authorities money and discretion? Each side of the argument has its attractions. We have to ensure that the money we have given to local authorities is well spent and that people know it is coming.

I have been interviewed on various television programmes, which have featured case studies of people who were obviously distressed—and I do not doubt that some people are distressed by this change. Obviously, however, if they approached their local authority, they would not be affected by it. That is the issue. They would go to their local authority, which has been given money to help them; the authority would help them, so they would not be affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) are right that we must ensure that people are not unduly alarmed, as in many cases money is available to help the most vulnerable.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the guidance to local authorities on how they should target the discretionary fund and discretionary housing payments has been sufficient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The policy under discussion has clearly led to much debate and concern, some of which has been based on misunderstanding and misinformation, and some of which has been based on people’s fears about the changes that they will have to face in April.

No one in the House could argue with the idea behind this policy, which is to deal with the fact that there are people in social housing who have more rooms than they need. The Government have said that 1 million spare bedrooms are having to be subsidised by other taxpayers, but the nub of the issue is the disagreement about whether all those bedrooms are really spare rooms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

I do not think that the Government have got it right, and I ask them to address the issue compassionately and with common sense, not only through the application of discretionary housing payments, which are essential and welcome, but through the provision of further exemptions for certain categories.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I welcome some of the hon. Gentleman’s approach, but he appears to be proceeding on the basis that the measure is about making better use of housing in a planned way. However, the Minister has made it very clear that it is about saving money.

[Greg Mulholland]

It is clearly about both things at the same time. Were it not about both, the Government would not be pursuing it. Were it not for the fact that the measure will save money, it simply would not have been put forward and no Member on the Government side of the House would have been asked to vote for it in any shape or form. That stands in great contrast to the hon. Lady’s Government, who, for over 13 years, dealt with neither point and allowed the problem to be ignored entirely and the welfare budget to get out of control. We have to make difficult decisions. It would be good to hear—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady again, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) if he still wishes to intervene.

[Mr Russell Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something for me? There is much talk about 1 million empty bedrooms, but there is some confusion about that. Are we talking about 1 million empty bedrooms in households that exclude pensioners, or would pensioner households create 1 million-plus empty bedrooms? Are we talking solely about households excluding pensioners?

[Greg Mulholland]

As the hon. Gentleman has clearly heard, it is the former. I hope that is clear.

The simple reality is that the social housing sector has an exemption in this regard that the private rented sector does not have. It is important to remember that in April 2008, when I sat on the Opposition side of the House, the previous Labour Government introduced the local housing allowance. I was a member of the Work and Pensions Committee at the time and know that it was not an entirely controversial measure, as Opposition Members will remember. We scrutinised it and raised concerns, but the then Labour Government were absolutely clear that local housing allowance would and should depend not only on the maximum rent allowed for properties in the area, but specifically on the number of rooms a tenant needed.

Again, the principle behind bringing this measure into the social housing sector is reasonable, and it would be helpful if the Opposition at least acknowledged that and said that they wish to assist and encourage people who are over-occupying and have more bedrooms than their family need to seek alternative accommodation in order to free up those properties. We all know from our huge case loads that that is needed. We can blame the previous Government and the Government before them for simply not building enough and for the absurdity of allowing the right to buy a council house without then building more to replace them. Those are things that this Government have committed finally to addressing.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The previous Labour Government, like Governments before them, always had difficulty with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, but the difference is that what his Front Benchers are proposing is a benefit cut.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am not quite sure what relevance that adds to the point I was making. Again, the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers were committed to benefit cuts in their 2010 manifesto, which they seem conveniently to have forgotten.

As I have said, I do not believe that the Government currently have the policy right. I have told the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), and other Ministers and colleagues that I believe that other exemptions should be included. Let us remind ourselves who the current exemptions are for: those of pensionable age; those in local housing shared ownership; those in temporary housing; the recently bereaved, who have protection for 52 weeks; and those who are provided with overnight care by an unpaid carer. I firmly believe that there should be other exemptions, as I said when the Bill was going through the House. We were unsuccessful in achieving any of our proposed amendments, which is why I did not support the Bill at the time. I made it clear that I could not support the policy as it stood then, and I cannot support it as it stands now.

Let me explain the other exemptions that I believe should be included. First, if it is deemed that two partners have to sleep in separate rooms for medical reasons or because of a disability, clearly they should be exempt. Similarly, if a child with a disability is deemed to require a separate room, they, too, should be exempt. Social housing plays a different role in the housing mix and is there, in particular, to support families in that situation who also have a low income. Of course, that would help with the current issue over the Court of Appeal ruling. The easiest thing for the Government to do would be to accept those exemptions.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. Obviously, I would prefer that this change was not happening at all. While he is on the subject of possible exemptions, does he agree that foster parents should also be exempt? When I raised that with the Minister at Work and Pensions questions, he talked about a discretionary fund, but foster parents in my constituency have told me that, because of the uncertain future, they might be put off continuing to foster. Would it not be much better if foster parents whose spare rooms are not a luxury but used to care for children who would otherwise probably be cared for at greater cost to the public purse were also exempt?

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say, because the next thing on my list is foster carers who are in between children to be cared for. Much of the criticism of the Government has been unfair and party political, which is in the nature of democratic politics, but the principle behind this measure, as I have said, is reasonable. We need to try to address the issue because of the housing crisis we face and to enable families living in seriously overcrowded accommodation to find appropriate housing. However, it is important that the Government do not undermine other key objectives, and clearly one of those is placing more children with foster families and encouraging more people to foster. I am afraid that that is what the measure, without the exemption, threatens to do.

The other category that I believe should be exempted is families who have sadly split up because the parents have separated, which is always difficult for every member of the family. In the majority of cases, the father is the non-resident parent and the parent without care. Whether they have their child for three days a week or two days a month, for example, is in many cases not determined by them; it is often imposed and has to be accepted even though the non-resident parent would like their child to stay with them more often. The parent wants to ensure that when their child stays they feel that it is also their home.

We talk about broken homes, but in reality we are talking about a family with two homes, or in many cases we are talking about two families. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the non-resident parent to maintain a bedroom and keep it for their child, with their things in it, so that when they come to stay they know they are staying with their other parent, at their other home and in their other bedroom. I think that is very important. Of course, child benefit is paid to the parent with care, so there can be serious financial pressures on the non-resident parent, who still has to feed the child, possibly for up to three nights a week, and indeed they also want to be able to contribute by buying things for them.

My message to my hon. Friend the Minister is please to look at these things again. He is absolutely right that there must be room for discretion, and some of that should rightly be exercised locally.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the outrageous advice given by DWP Ministers to vulnerable and disabled people that they should take in lodgers—people off the streets—simply to remain in their own properties is a good and sound idea that will not cause massive problems?

[Greg Mulholland]

In certain cases people have the choice of taking in a lodger in order to enable someone else from their family to live there. However, my point is that there should be clear exemptions based on a clear medical need for a separate room, and if people have those exemptions, that discussion is no longer necessary.

If the exemptions that should be in place are there, the question of where local discretion should be used becomes discretionary rather than a set of difficult choices. Discretion should be used, for example, in the case of properties that have been adapted on the basis of a certain need.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

Very quickly, although I want to make progress.

[Wayne David]

The discretionary payment is for disabled people who have properties that are adapted, but many of them do not live in properties that have been adapted, so they are excluded. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that?

[Greg Mulholland]

I have made it clear that the exemption needs to be a straightforward one for people who need a separate bedroom because of their disability. Again, if that is in place, we do not need to have this discussion, and then we have to look at whether the adaption should qualify.

Similarly, there is local discretion if a bedroom is clearly needed for storage of medical equipment for a child with a particularly severe disability, for example. Discretion can also be applied for people with certain mental health conditions—something that can be far better assessed locally than it possibly could be through legislation.

The people who know best about local issues and problems with housing stock are those in the local authorities and housing associations. In some areas, local authorities and housing associations have been keen to place people in accommodation that has been very hard to let. They will often put, say, single people or couples into a two or three-bedroom property in what has been deemed a difficult-to-let area, and so they end up under-occupying. It becomes ironic if someone then has to move away from that area, leaving the property lying empty. The discretion should be intended precisely to deal with that kind of knowledge of each different local housing issue.

[Mrs McGuire]

Given the list of suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has identified, I can do nothing other than agree with the main thrust of his argument. Does he think that the discretionary payment that the Government have allocated is adequate to meet even his list of exemptions, which is not exhaustive?

[Greg Mulholland]

We need to have the further exemptions that I have mentioned so that we are clear that discretion is just that, rather than for dealing with large categories of people whom many of us believe should be exempted in the first place. We can divide up the amount put forward by the Government, which is a significant sum, but it needs to be targeted at the types of matters that I have specified, and it has to be discretionary. That is why it is essential that we have the further exemptions or give councils the choice.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, but I will give way.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has been very generous. Does he accept that many people are worried because they will not be able to apply for the exemption until the scheme kicks in, so by the time they are assessed they will have potentially built up rent arrears?

[Greg Mulholland]

That is not my understanding. I am encouraging people to contact their councils now, and that is the message that each and every one of us should send out. There is clearly an information problem that needs to be dealt with, because people should be applying for these exemptions now. I am encouraging them to do so, and some in my area already have.

To ensure that this policy succeeds in its twin objectives of bringing down the cost of the welfare budget and freeing up homes, it is important to allow the discretion so that people should be subject to paying the additional sum only if they have turned down reasonable smaller accommodation—because in many areas there are not enough one-bedroom properties around. Members from rural constituencies have expressed concern about people potentially being moved great distances to a house, taking them away from their communities. Again, there needs to be local discretion, and it applies even in urban areas. For example, someone in the north of Leeds, in Yeadon or in Otley in my constituency, might be asked to move right to the other side of the city. There are factors that need reasonably to be considered as part of local discretion: for example, if the person is in work and receiving housing benefit and does not have a car, it can be very difficult for them to get to work, or they may need family support for caring, for child care responsibilities or in relation to schooling.

I hope that I have made it clear that I fully support the Government’s desire to tackle the spiralling cost of welfare benefits and the reasonable and sensible measures that they have proposed that are designed to do that. I fully support their policy thrust of making sure that our welfare system is properly focused on those who most need it. The same should apply to our social housing sector. There are difficult decisions for all parties in making sure that social housing is being used by the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society, because at the moment it is not being used in that way.

On this occasion, I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I will abstain on the motion because, as this policy stands, I still feel that it does not pass all the tests that the Government have rightly set themselves. I urge my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and colleagues to look at it again. They should look very seriously at what further exemptions could be introduced to deal with the remaining issues. They should also make sure that they bring forward a full and proper programme of review so that as the policy goes forward it can be reviewed to see whether it is doing what it set out to do and is not leading to unfair and unforeseen consequences, in which case they would have to make changes further down the line. I urge them to look at the measure again now, before it is introduced, to see what can be done to show people that it is about improving the system so that it is aimed at bringing down the cost of the welfare budget and positively trying to deal with the problem of overcrowding in which many families find themselves.