Pensions and Benefits Uprating

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the start of the statement, it is not seemly for him to seek to participate. I would not want him to behave in an unseemly manner—wittingly or unwittingly. I am in a sense saving the hon. Gentleman from himself in saying that he should not participate on this occasion. We will store him up and look forward to his words of wisdom subsequently.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today’s pension announcement and on getting the Liberal Democrat policy of a triple lock increase into this Government’s programme. Does he agree that with a safety net of 2.5%, the minimum pension increase that people can look forward to in the future is nearly £3 a week and that they will have no more insulting 75p a week increases?

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave that exchange there.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In yesterday’s Finance Bill debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said that the tax gap was £32 billion when the previous Government left office and that it has now gone up to £35 billion. Official Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show the tax gap was actually £42 billion when Labour left office, so there has been a fall of £7 billion under this Government. I know the Opposition are keen to regain some financial credibility, so I hope the hon. Lady will correct the record and also find time to congratulate this Government on their progress in—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman—and I say it in a cordial spirit—that that was another action replay? We have now had two action replays today, and I must strongly counsel colleagues against raising as attempted, but actually bogus, points of order what are really political points. Otherwise this phenomenon will multiply over the next nine months or so, which is undesirable. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record, and we will leave it there—and I am grateful for his nod of assent to my ruling.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Ian Swales.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last year, a Cabinet Office Minister said:“Relocation of staff out of expensive London offices to other regions continues to be high on the agenda…to deliver the savings needed.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 964W.]Will the Prime Minister look into moving some of those jobs to Redcar and Cleveland, where we have low-cost offices, affordable housing, school places, people who are ready to work, and a great lifestyle?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Experts said that Labour’s energy price freeze announcement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Opposition Members should not yell at the hon. Gentleman. He is asking his question. Let us hear it.

[Ian Swales]

Experts said that Labour’s energy price freeze announcement would raise prices in the short term and protect the big six by freezing new investment. Since then, prices have gone up. National Grid says that half of new investment—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am struggling to find anything that relates to the responsibility of the Prime Minister in the hon. Gentleman’s question. Therefore, we will proceed with Mr Gordon Marsden.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for that response. His announcement of that extra funding is the first I have heard of it. I will ask my local authority why it has not applied.

We need to recognise that some people simply cannot afford right-size accommodation and that it does not exist in their area. The Government should seriously consider a policy of treating those people as willing but unable to move and give them concessions in the system.

In my area, there have been some helpful consequences. I have been thanked by a number of families who have managed, owing to the policy, to get a bigger house in the area where they want to live. One social housing provider I met was surprised by the number of large families moving into their houses from overcrowded private rented accommodation. I do not know why that provider was surprised; surely, we ought to have expected that. Only the week before last, I was in an excellent hostel run by Coatham House, a charity in my constituency for homeless young people. It has said that it has seen a dramatic fall in the number of homeless young people. It put that down to the policy. Hon. Members might think there are bad reasons for that—I can think of those, too—but there might also be good reasons.

Many points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned the financial stability of some of the stock transfer social housing providers. Some of them are highly leveraged and threatened by arrears, which will increase when direct payments begin. They could find themselves financially unstable.

I welcome the Government’s efforts to free up the system. One of the first cases that I dealt with as an MP was that of a single man living in a three-bedroom house. He wanted to downsize, but the system was so rigid that he was told that he would be moved to the bottom of the waiting list, with no guarantee of how and when he would get his next social house. Guess what? He did not move. I welcome that the system has, to an extent, been freed up and that exchanges are happening more often.

I welcome the continued commitment to review the policy, as it does need continual review. Despite the views that I have expressed in my speech, it is hard to welcome the hypocrisy evident from the Labour party on this issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but speeches have tended to be at the limit, with lots of interventions taken. I have to reduce the time limit with immediate effect to four minutes, otherwise colleagues will not get in. People do not have to take the full time, but they can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear Mr Swales and I feel sure the people of Redcar do.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The Russians want to award the prestigious Ushakov medal to Arctic convoy veterans. The Governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA have agreed. The UK Government have refused. Will the Prime Minister get this decision reversed quickly so that my constituent, John Ramsey, and the rest of the dwindling band of veterans get the recognition they so richly deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) has provided an object lesson to new Members in how to shoehorn one’s own question into someone else’s, and we are greatly obliged to her.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the future of the UK bioethanol industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, there was exemplary brevity on both counts.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Swales and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the House can overcome its collective mirth, it will give a hearing to Mr Ian Swales.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Last Friday I visited Grangetown school in my constituency, which is the 17th most deprived primary school in the country. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the school and community on their work to convert an area of demolished houses into a school playing field, and will he ensure that the Government continue their pupil premium policy to support the school’s excellent work?