Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am aware that there is, quite rightly, a lot of interest in how we will assess the pilot, and I have been looking at that myself. Ultimately, the pilot will be a success if we get as many people as we expect across from the legacy benefits to universal credit as effectively and efficiently as possible. I want to ensure that we give them the right support, and that they have an effective transfer. The process we have at the moment will be based on “Who knows who?”—“Who knows me?” will be the theme—so we are engaging with organisations and individuals to ensure that they get the right support. I have already requested my Department to look at the suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman kindly made last week about finding out which organisation might support which individual and who those individuals receiving notice to move might trust and prefer to engage with. I will be taking that forward as well.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement. Has she been able to look at the five-week delay for new universal credit claimants to see whether it can be reduced? A lot of us on both sides of the House feel that it could be reduced to much less than five weeks.

[Amber Rudd]

I know that my hon. Friend has raised this on several occasions, and he will be aware that the Department has already made changes that will affect the run-on of housing benefit and additional legacy benefits by the end of next year. I will always look at finding ways to get those essential funds to the people who really need them as early as possible.

Application of the Family Test

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely. I recommend that the hon. Lady points her constituent to that reply and challenges the Department accordingly. That is one of the reasons that we raise such questions.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Having well over 2,000 serving defence personnel based in my constituency, I wanted to comment on my hon. Friend’s important points about the Ministry of Defence. Does she agree that rather than being seen as a kind of hindrance, a pro-family policy is incredibly important for morale, not just for the armed forces but right across the civil service and across the country? It should be looked at as a positive thing, and not as something that somehow gets in the way.

[Fiona Bruce]

As so often, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We need to ensure that strengthening family life is embedded within our policy making, because it is good for the individuals involved, but also because it is good for the country. I am convinced that our productivity levels, which are lower than they should be compared with many other developed countries, have some connection with the fact that we also have one of the highest levels of family breakdown in the developed world. People need to be supported and secure in their home life, from which they can then go out to work and be fulfilled.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay who introduced this debate said, we all pay the price if we do not have strong families. There is pressure on housing, because families are divided. There is also addiction, underachievement at school, mental health problems among young people, pressure on GPs’ surgeries because of depression, and, as I have said, underperformance at work. All that adds up to far more than the £51 billion cited in one assessment—I think it was by the Relationships Foundation. We need to look much more closely at underproductivity; it will cost our country dearly if we do not. Clearly, those who are responsible for safeguarding the security of our nation—working in defence—deserve that to be addressed more than anyone.

The Government Equalities Office sent an amusing reply:

“The family test was not formally applied to any of our regulations, as they do not have a direct or demonstrable impact on family relationships.”

It quoted three such regulations, including the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 and the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014. If they do not have an impact on families, what does?

I will pass over the Department for Exiting the European Union’s tick-box response. I am sure that we all agree that Brexit will affect every family in the land, if it does not already. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave a one-and-a-half-line reply:

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not applied the family test to date, as it applies to domestic policy only.”

The Department of Health and Social Care replied with only four and a half lines, stating:

“The Department does not keep a formal record of the legislation to which the family test was applied.”

That is really important, because it is the exact point we are making: given that there is no requirement to record any assessment, there is no evidence of it being done, which is not satisfactory.

As I said, the Home Office—after a reminder—sent a reply six months later, which was three and a half lines long. It said:

“The Government’s guidance on the family test is available on gov.uk…The Home Office will apply the family test if sensible and proportionate.”

It gives no further information at all. I could go on, but I think colleagues get the gist.

What do we do about this? We need to ask the Government not just to take action, but to take on board the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill. It is a draft Bill that was introduced in the Lords by Lord Farmer, and which I introduced in the Commons in May 2018. I would like the Minister to explain why nothing has happened about the Bill. It addresses the concerns that we are talking about today. The Bill would require

“public bodies to accompany any proposal for a change in public expenditure, administration or policy with a family impact assessment”.

We felt that “family test” was perhaps not the best term, because it implies a pass or fail. By contrast, a “family impact assessment” is a broader exercise. The Bill would also:

“require the Secretary of State to report on the costs and benefits of extending family impact assessments to local authorities”

within six months of passing the legislation. We wanted to press for that because local authorities keep virtually no data on the extent of family breakdown in their areas. If we do not have the information, how can we start to address an issue?

It is very interesting that a number of local authorities are actively addressing this issue in a way that those of us who work on strengthening family life have recommended to Government in our policy paper, “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the document, but I never miss an opportunity to pass a copy to a Minister in such a debate. The document is now supported by about 70 Members of Parliament and contains several policies to strengthen family life.

It is disappointing that the Government have not collectively embraced the policies in the manifesto. Ideally, we would like to see that done through the leadership of a Cabinet Minister for families. That is not in any way to denigrate the work or enthusiasm of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I know that he is interested in this subject, because he has told me so. However, if we are to make real headway on this issue, we need to have a Secretary of State who is responsible for strengthening families. Once again, I ask the Minister to take that message back—it is a key ask in the manifesto.

Another key ask is the development of local family hubs. These would not be Sure Start centres, which are just for pre-school children. The Minister might tell us something about the working group on young children, of which he is a member, and we support that. However, in each community we need a family hub where people can go if they have family difficulties and challenges regarding children of all ages, couple relationship problems or problems caring for an elderly relative. People need somewhere to go to get support on all those issues.

It is very interesting—this will bring me back to talking about the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill—that many local authorities are setting up family hubs, despite the national Government not providing any particularly strong incentive for them to do so. Across the country, we are getting such hubs set up. In fact, we will hold a family hubs fair in the Jubilee Room on 5 June, and I invite the Minister to attend. There will be examples from all over the country of local authorities that aim to strengthen family life. As I said, without the requirement for data to be produced by local authorities so that they can understand the extent of the issue in their area, how can they address it? That is why the requirement is in the draft legislation.

We also state in the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill that we want there to be proper evaluation of “progress towards family stability”. The Secretary of State in each Department should publish an annual report on progress towards stabilising families within the Department: what action have they taken? The family impact assessment would then begin to gather together information, recording how policies ultimately have a negative or positive impact on families.

When Lord Farmer introduced the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill in the Lords, he quite rightly said we need it because there is no systematic way that policies are developed to support family relationships; there are only individual Ministers doing this. It is interesting that the Department of Justice gave a tick-box reply, because it has actually taken up strengthening family life with great gusto. It indicates that the dots are still not being joined up within Departments regarding officials’ work on this issue. I commend the Department of Justice for the way it is developing the Farmer review, but we need to do more.

Our Bill would put family impact assessments and their publication on a statutory footing and, as I have said, require the Secretary of State to report annually on progress. The Government need to do much better. Some of us have been speaking in this place about the matter since this Government came to varying forms of power. It is now almost a decade. We will shortly enter our tenth year—that is half a generation that we have now lost, when we could have taken action to help children who are growing up in dysfunctional families.

We talk about how we will be held to account for the way that we address Brexit, but those children are not able to hold us to account. They cannot go to the ballot box next year or the year after, but they are being dreadfully impacted by the fact that we are failing them and failing to look at how we can strengthen family life in this country. If I am right, there are now 27,000 children involved in gangs. What are gangs if not substitute families? Those children are looking for somewhere to belong, and we must do something urgently to address that. The Government must get a grip on this issue. The responses to our questions about the family test show that that is simply not happening.

The Government should adopt our draft Bill and get on with it. Will the Minister please explain why that has not happened? The whole point is to highlight the importance of the family perspective in policy making. Perhaps one of the problems is that officials and Ministers need training. Perhaps we need to help them assess the impact of policies on family life. We expect them to do it, but perhaps we need to help them by giving them training. As a comparison, we all agree that antisemitism is a concern. Officials are rightly being given training in how to address it, and I believe that the Government have allocated more than £14 million for that. That is positive, but how much is being put in to strengthen family life holistically? Which Departments have sent anyone on courses to train them in how to assess family impact? If that has happened, who was sent, where did they go and what was the outcome? If it has not, why not?

Please let me know if I am speaking for too long, Sir David. I will conclude shortly, but I would like to turn to the loneliness strategy.

Social Security and Employment Support for Disabled People

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I was not in Prime Minister’s questions to hear that particular example, but of course I will follow it up with great urgency. It is not acceptable for people to have appointments cancelled at the last minute or to be asked to wait. That is certainly not the service that we expect from our contractors.

I have made the commitment to publish the standards that we are insisting on in the contract. We monitor compliance with the standards very carefully, and there are penalties in the contract if people fall short of the high standards that we expect of them. Every person with a health condition or disability must be treated with respect and dignity.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and her colleagues for listening so much and for making these changes, but will she look at the face-to-face assessments and at whether more could be done with paper-based reviews or home visits? It is pretty difficult for some people to get to the assessment centres, certainly from my constituency, and some people who have mental health conditions find the assessments incredibly stressful.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing and passionate championship of the vulnerable people in his constituency and across our country. We have listened very carefully to what he has said and we have increased the number of home visits that can be undertaken but I definitely want to go further and, wherever possible, make decisions based on the information provided by the medical profession, the disabled people themselves or those people supporting them so as to reduce the number of face-to-face assessments. They are all undertaken by qualified healthcare professionals, whose training we keep under review. I want to ensure that we have only those face-to-face assessments that are really necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I have to say that I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments are outrageous. It is in no way our intention to do any of the things he set out in that way. The purpose of this Department—[Interruption.] It is what the hon. Gentleman said, and I think I have made my views on the UN rapporteur absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman need only listen to what we are saying and actually look at the evidence—look at the evidence of people getting back into work, of people getting higher paid jobs. The political choice that we are making on the Government Benches is for a stronger economy to deliver the jobs that are wanted by his constituents and mine.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post and suggest she pays attention to what the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said a bit earlier, because that is very important in terms of cash flow and the position facing people coming on to universal credit? The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), made some welcome points in response to that question, but we need to build on that for the future and also build on the work my right hon. Friend’s predecessor did in this respect.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and he is absolutely right: I am well aware of the need to ensure that people have access to those cash benefits as soon as possible. We have already made some adjustments to that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. She will know—I was asked this question in a Westminster Hall debate last week—that we have attempted to deal with this issue with some sensitivity. The undertaking I have given to her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central is that if she believes there are particular issues with the system in place for dealing with this, we are more than happy to look at them. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady as well to discuss it.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give an example of a policy that has been strengthened, or indeed dropped, as a result of being subject to the family test?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and one with which I have been grappling since I was appointed to this position. He will know that a number of programmes across the Government are aimed at strengthening families, not least the troubled families programme, which has seen an investment of something like £982 million. On new initiatives, he may have heard me mention in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) that we are investing—newly announced in the Budget last year—£39 million in a programme designed to reduce parental conflict. That has been done on the basis of looking for parenting programmes that will create more stability and therefore happier outcomes for families.

Universal Credit

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The minimum income floor is an important part of our system. If we do not have it, we can leave the system in a place where we are simply not able to help people in self-employed jobs that are not giving them sufficient income to have the living standards they want. We have to provide support to those people, so that they have a sustainable job that provides sufficient income to them and does not provide an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on these welcome changes. When does he expect to have the new guidance out on managed payments to landlords? Might this be available to existing UC claimants as well as new ones?

[Mr Gauke]

We will have that guidance out in December, so we will be moving quickly on that. This is designed for those who have previously been on housing benefit with an alternative payment arrangement. Of course where work coaches, as they engage with new claimants, identify that the right approach is for an alternative payment arrangement to exist—in other words, the money goes to the landlord—they can take that forward.

State Pensions: UK Expatriates

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who made a gracious and fine speech about why this House, working cross-party, must deal with this issue. I commend all the other Members who have spoken in this debate, too. Let me say to the Minister that I suspect this is the last time in this Parliament that we will be discussing pensions matters. I have always enjoyed our spats across the Dispatch Box. I know he is an honourable and decent man, and I ask him to reflect carefully on all the speeches made this afternoon and to give us an indication that the Government are prepared, on the basis of affordability, to deal with this very real injustice that too many people are facing.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on a motion standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I am also grateful but saddened by the fact that we have to be here today debating this issue, which is fundamentally about fairness and which should, as has been said, have been resolved many decades ago.

The motion addresses the rights of just over 1 million UK pensioners who live overseas. We are talking about those who have paid national insurance on the basis that the payments made to the UK Exchequer entitle an individual to a UK state pension. When someone makes national insurance contributions, building up their entitlement, there is nothing that suggests that their right to a full pension will be determined by where they choose to live in future. Each individual has earned that entitlement, and it should be honoured. It is a simple matter of entitlement in what ought to be a contractual arrangement.

The Government repeatedly call the state pension a benefit, but that argument is undermined by the basic principle that entitlement is earned by making contributions. To achieve a full UK state pension, a person needs to have accrued 35 years of payments. In such a regime, why should someone’s place of domicile affect their rights? The UK is the only member state of the OECD that does not confer full pension rights, including the annual uprating of pensions, to those who have made contributions. It is simply not right that we discriminate against pensioners because of where they live; and let us make no mistake: that is what it is—discrimination. It is a failure of the United Kingdom to accept its responsibility to give full pension entitlement to those who have earned that right.

A person’s entitlement to the annual uprating of the state pension is determined by what country they live in. Some 679,000 UK pensioners who live in other countries do get the annual uprating, but there are 551,000 whose pensions are frozen at the level at which they first received their state pension when living abroad. Someone who is now aged 90 who had retired aged 65 in April 1991 would, had they qualified for pension uprating, now be receiving £119.31 per week; if their pension was frozen at the 1991 level, their weekly pension would be £52 per week. That is without justification. Such an individual would have lost out on £39,489 of pension income over a 25-year period as a consequence of their being in receipt of a frozen pension and denied their full rights. Think about what that means: by refusing to grant uprating, we are impoverishing our pensioners.

The average amount received by a pensioner with a frozen pension is just £2,258 per year, whereas the average for a pensioner living in the UK is £7,198 per year. We are denying pensioners income that rightfully ought to be theirs. Many will have to receive support from relatives, or perhaps they will have to return to the UK, where the cost of supporting such elderly residents is invariably higher when health and other social costs are taken into account. We also have to think about the fact that many people came to this country to work, often for many decades, and want to return to their country of origin in retirement. Such folk are put off by the reality of potentially being penalised through the receipt of a frozen pension. Where is the humanity in this? Where is the dignity in stopping people who have given long service to this country and paid their way retiring as they wish? They want to know that they will receive their full pension rights. This is a wrong that we must deal with. People who come to this country should not be penalised when they choose to go home.

Other countries see the current situation as a diplomatic grievance, and that will no doubt be a factor when the UK discusses trade deals. Other countries are going to turn around and say, “You want a decent relationship with us, but you are not prepared to treat your pensioners who live in our country fairly.” The fact that we are unique in the OECD in not accepting our obligations does not go down well with other Governments. We need to show leadership, and that we will stand by those who have earned a pension entitlement.

The International Consortium of British Pensioners has been mentioned by many speakers. I commend the consortium for the work it has been doing with the all-party group and the research it has conducted, which shows that because of the lower health and social care costs of somebody not living in this country, there is a saving of £1,575 for every pensioner who moves abroad. Such savings would partly offset the costs of annual uprating.

The House debated frozen pensions on 11 May last year. This debate follows other debates on this matter going back over the past few decades. The hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned Winston Churchill at the turn of the century; indeed, his grandson, also Winston Churchill, was involved in this matter, too. I have been sent a copy of a letter sent in 1993 by the younger Winston Churchill, the then Member for Davyhulme, to a retired pensioner living in Australia called Victor Humphries. Churchill stated in his letter that he hoped the

“Government may be shamed into taking steps to honour its commitment to expatriate pensioners”.

He went on:

“I have no doubt that if sufficient weight of Parliamentary support can be demonstrated for redressing this clear injustice, the Government will have no alternative but to back down.”

Winston Churchill was right in 1993, and all the Members who have spoken in this debate are right in 2017. It is shameful that, collectively, we have not yet dealt with this issue.

There is, of course, a topical aspect to the debate. Brexit hangs like a black cloud over this issue. Of the 679,000 UK pensioners who do receive an annual uprating, 492,000 are currently protected by the social security provisions of the EU single market. What is going to happen to the rights of those 492,000 UK pensioners post-Brexit? Will the Minister commit today to the continuation of the annual uprating for those living in EU member states? We often hear from the Government how they want to protect the rights of UK citizens living in Europe. Many of those citizens will be listening to or will hear about this debate. They will be concerned about their pension rights to the extent that, in the absence of any guarantees, many will consider whether they might not be able to afford to continue to live in an EU member state. The Minister can deal with that uncertainty today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is inconceivable that this Government, or the Government after the election, would not guarantee uprating to British pensioners who live in the EU 27? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, it is therefore inconceivable that justice would not come at the same time for the people who have been denied it for so long. That would be discrimination of the worst sort.

[Ian Blackford]

I concur 100% with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. We have the opportunity today to deal with this matter and with the uncertainty facing UK citizens who live in Europe. That would be the right thing to do. As has been demonstrated, the cost of doing this for other British citizens would not be all that great. We can actually deal with this matter today if the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of good faith. As we go into the election campaign, I implore us all to make the commitment, collectively, to deal with the injustices we are discussing. If he so chooses, the Minister can remove the uncertainty today, or he can at least give us an indication that the Government are prepared to do something about this issue.

A further 186,000 UK pensioners live in countries with which the UK has a historical bilateral agreement on social security, including the US. A total of 551,000 UK citizens live in countries in which their pensions are frozen, with the largest numbers being in Australia where there are 246,000, and Canada where there are 144,000. The all-party group has met members of the Canadian diplomatic community, and I can tell the House that they are less than impressed with the behaviour of the UK Government on this matter. We are offending our international friends with our failure to take action.

We often hear about a postcode lottery; this is a national lottery, but one in which 551,000 British pensioners are paying the price. I am glad that the motion has cross-party support, and hope that the Minister will recognise the nature of that support and that we are all appealing to the Government to signal that there is an obligation on them to see sense on this matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope we will hear from him that the Government are prepared to take action. It is about doing the right thing, and standing up and recognising that all pensioners, irrespective of where they live, deserve to be treated equally.

When we consider that the Government are lifting the limit on the period that UK citizens may live abroad but vote here from 15 years to their entire lifetime, we have to ask why the Government would want to confer voting rights on UK pensioners but deny them full pension rights? Perhaps the Government should reflect on the fact that more than 1 million UK pensioners live overseas. Those pensioners may have a reason to want to register to vote in this coming election campaign, given the infringement of their pension rights. As the hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned, there are 264,000 registered overseas voters—400 per constituency. Can Members imagine the threat to MPs up and down this country if frozen pensioners and others decided that they were going to exercise their franchise? With an election coming, a rise in registrations may just help focus the mind of the Government. What drives the decision-making process of the Government? Is it cost saving, or is it about accepting our obligations to meet a commitment to paying pensions regardless of country of residence?

I appreciate that the Minister will have been told by the Treasury not to offer anything. I know that he is a loyal Government servant and I understand his position. Let me, if I may, try to help him by strengthening his arguments with the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during a debate on the Pensions Bill in the 2003-04 session, when acting as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

“If the system worked in the way that most people think, it would not matter where a person lived.”––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2004; c. 256.]

I have to say that, on this occasion, I agree with him; it should not matter where a person lives. I appeal to the Minister to reflect on the words of his friend, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those words were spoken when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, but each and everyone one of us should be judged by our deeds in government. It is not good enough to say the right thing when in opposition and then, when in government, claim that it is all about cost. We should be judged by our deeds, and today we have that opportunity. I implore the Minister to do the right thing on this issue today.

I have faith that the Minister will listen to reasoned argument and recognise that this is an injustice that needs to be corrected. Let me deal with the issue of affordability. The Government like to claim that the cost of unfreezing pensions is unaffordable. Ministers have sometimes cited numbers in the billions, but any such claim is highly misleading. The motion for debate proposes the withdrawal of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations. That would include previously frozen pensions in this year’s 2.5% increase, which would cost £30 million. Assuming that this inclusion continued in subsequent years, the total cost would rise by around £30 million extra each year.

The ICBP has historically campaigned for pension parity, bringing currently frozen pensions up to UK levels immediately, which would cost £580 million, but that is not what is being proposed today. Any higher number cited by the Government involves looking at the cumulative cost over a longer period, which is not how new policies are usually assessed and is therefore misleading. The additional cost of uprating at 2.5% over the next five years would have a cost in year one of £30 million, rising to £33 million by year five, by which time it would have a cumulative cost of £158 million. Let me put that in context: the bill for UK state pensions is currently £86.8 billion. Partial uprating is equivalent to 0.03% of current pension spending.

Let me assist the Minister again. We are all aware that there is a separate national insurance fund, and we know from the Government Actuary’s Department that it is anticipated that that fund will have a surplus of £30.7 billion this year. Clearly, the cost of doing this can be met from the surplus that currently sits in the national insurance fund. Of course this is affordable. This is about our obligation to our pensioners and the human cost of not meeting those obligations. We need to listen to the voices of those who are discriminated against by our failure to pay full pension entitlement.

I will close now with some quotes. I know that the hon. Member for North Thanet has eloquently presented us with some human experiences, but let me just add to them, because at the end of the day it is the cost for the individuals that should concern us. Abhik Bonnerjee is 72 years old and now lives in Kolkata, India. After contributing to the British economy for 38 years, he is now scared of losing his home as he is struggling to survive on his frozen pension. He is considering moving to an unfrozen country. He said:

“The Government should be doing more, especially for Commonwealth countries, and MPs can’t explain why they are not.”

Bernard Jackson, 91, moved to Canada, but was forced to return to the UK in order to obtain his full pension. He said:

“I was brought up to believe that Britain was a fair country. It’s a disgrace, it has to end. It’s terrible to meet pensioners over here who say they have to come back to Britain because they can’t manage.”

Fireworks: Licensing of Premises

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Friday 18th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Just over two years ago, an explosion and fire at a business—SP Plastics—in Stafford resulted in the tragic deaths of two people, injuries to others, the destruction of buildings and the loss of businesses. I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathy to all those who suffered as a result. I would also like to thank Staffordshire fire and rescue service, the national health service and Staffordshire police, as well as local volunteer groups that assisted them. The investigations into this tragedy have not yet concluded, so I will not comment on the causes. However, there is no doubt that the scale and nature of the fire was due to the presence of large quantities of fireworks on the premises.

I am most grateful to Stephanie Horton of River Canal Rescue for much of the information that follows. Her business premises were destroyed, and she and her 30 staff had to rebuild from scratch, all the time providing a vital service to river and canal users across the country. I pay tribute to her and her staff, and to the other business owners and staff who had to cope with the consequences of the fire.

My purpose today is to ask the Minister to look at improving the way in which the storage and sale of fireworks are regulated. I will also make some points about the way in which businesses that have suffered catastrophic events such as this are supported by public bodies.

It may help if I summarise the current regulations for the licensing of premises for the storage of fireworks. Someone who wishes to run wholesale or retail premises that store or sell fireworks, up to a total of 2 tonnes, must be licensed with the fire service, if they are based in some of the metropolitan areas, or with the trading standards department of the local council, if they are based elsewhere. Someone who intends to store or sell more than 2 tonnes, or the most powerful category 4 fireworks, which are designed for professional displays and large open spaces, will need a licence from the Health and Safety Executive.

In principle, the regulations seem reasonable. However, they depend on the training of the inspectors from trading standards or the fire and rescue services, and on proper disclosure from the owner of the business.

My first request of the Minister is that when the conclusive report into this tragic fire is released, she will consider whether the regulations are sufficient. There is a great deal of difference between a shop storing perhaps a few category 2 fireworks and a warehouse containing up to 2 tonnes of category 2 or 3 fireworks, yet the same application procedure applies to both. Should there be an intermediate category covering substantial sellers who fall below the threshold for licensing by the Health and Safety Executive, and should such larger traders perhaps be licensed by the fire service rather than the local council? After all, the storage of large quantities of fireworks—to me, 2 tonnes is a large quantity—is a fire risk. In the case of small retailers, risks are more likely to concern consumer safety and the age of those purchasing fireworks—work for which trading standards is eminently suited.

My second suggestion arises from the experience of those at River Canal Rescue, who found themselves without sufficient insurance cover because they were unaware of what was stored in the nearby warehouse. This suggestion, which could be implemented immediately, is that all applications for licences require that the trader be properly insured for the storage and sale of fireworks, and that this should include insurance cover liability to third parties. Nowhere have I seen this on application forms. If someone wishes to obtain a licence for a motor vehicle, they have to show that it is properly insured in respect of third parties. Fireworks are potentially as dangerous as motor vehicles, so it makes sense for the same rule to apply. It should also be a requirement that the insurance policy be displayed and that neighbouring businesses be informed of the fact that fireworks are stored so that they can, in turn, let their insurers know in case it is of significance.

Ms Horton of River Canal Rescue makes another reasonable suggestion, which is that those who are responsible for licensing—trading standards or the fire service—should conduct unannounced checks on premises, and that they should receive more specific training in fireworks where they do not have it. No system is perfect, but we must learn the lessons from whatever failures are shown to have occurred that resulted in the fire in Stafford. I believe that the proposal to make production of a valid insurance policy a precondition of receiving a licence is simple and capable of swift implementation.

I turn now to the aftermath of the fire and, in particular, the consequences for the businesses that were so badly affected. Ms Horton says:

“There was no support, help of concessions given to us by government bodies. We had to rebuild from scratch. We lost everything, including all of our accounts. It took nearly 6 months to reinstate these alone. Penalties, letters and a general disregard for our situation from HMRC gave us extra stress in a very stressful situation, especially when you take into account that there were 30 employees whose jobs relied on us to keep the plates spinning.”

Despite this, the company has been named medium employer of the year at the north-west national apprenticeship awards. That is an outstanding achievement given the circumstances. I suggest that there is more that Government and local government, can do, in co-operation with the business community, to ensure that businesses are fully supported after a calamity such as a fire that has affected them through no fault of their own. The local council—which, after all, collects business rates—could offer an officer, perhaps in co-operation with the chamber of commerce, who would liaise with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, banks and others to assist the business through that difficult time. In that way, jobs will be saved.

I have three suggestions to put to the Government: first, a licence system that is more appropriate to the level of risk involved; secondly, a requirement that proper insurance held by the applicant be a requirement of obtaining a licence; and thirdly, a straightforward system of support for businesses affected by fires, floods or other major disruptions. All this could, I believe, be put in place with little or no cost. At the same time, it should reduce the risk of such tragedies as happened in Stafford occurring and, even if they did, assist with recovery from them.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for introducing this debate and for assembling here a large number of right hon. and hon. Members.

My father became disabled when I was two weeks old, when he was 34. He worked for the rest of his working life until he was 65. It was only after he died that I found that at one point he had had to consider emigrating to Australia in order to get work, but thanks to the foresightedness of a church in Highbury in Islington—he was a vicar—he was able to work in the United Kingdom. Throughout my childhood, as we were growing up, we saw the gradual improvement of the situation for disabled people in this country. I pay tribute to Governments of all colours over the past 50 years for that, because it has been incredibly important. I saw, for instance, the significant improvement that Motability made to his life and his ability to do his work—he benefited from the scheme from its introduction. That is why I believe that the motion should be supported and that the cuts to the work-related component in both ESA and universal credit should be paused and reconsidered.

The Government’s argument, which I understand, is that they wish everybody in the work-related activity group to return to work as soon as possible, and they intend to put in money to support and assist them in that process. Three assumptions underline that argument. The first is that the cost of living for those on ESA is pretty much the same as that for those on jobseeker’s allowance; in other words, it covers basic living costs. The second assumption is that any additional costs relating to sickness or disability can be covered by the personal independence payment. The third is that people will not receive ESA for very long, because they will get back into work.

On the face of it, one can assume that those assumptions are well meaning, but I would challenge all three of them. On the cost of living, those in the WRAG tend to have mental health conditions, cancer or musculoskeletal conditions, and they are often housebound for long periods. That means that they face an additional cost for heating, because they are not able to go out searching for work all the time. Macmillan says that 28% of cancer sufferers say that they cannot keep their homes adequately warm. They also face an additional cost for food: some of the diets involved are expensive and there is no particular help available. There is also the cost of transport, as people go frequently to hospital and doctors’ appointments.

The argument has been put to me that those costs could be covered by PIP, but fewer than half of those in the WRAG are eligible for and claim PIP. In any case, PIP covers mobility and care costs; it does not cover heating or dietary costs.

The final assumption, which is understandable, is that those in the WRAG will be able to return to work relatively soon, but that is not borne out by the facts. People tend to be in the WRAG for an average of two years, while the figure for JSA is six months. JSA is set at a level that assumes that people will be on it for only a few months, and it is very difficult to see how people can continue at that level without in the end getting into considerable debt. It seems to me that the assumptions, understandably made by the Government, do not hold up.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the commitment that was made to increase support for disabled people to get into work as a quid pro quo for the benefit cut. Does he agree, however, that it appears that the Government now propose to spend less on employment support for disabled people than has been spent on the failed Work programme? Surely they should be spending more, not less.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am not clear on the figures, but what I do know is that the Government are committed to providing support to people to get into work. That is absolutely vital, but I do not think it is a substitute for the additional financial help that has been given until now.

I welcome the Green Paper and the Government’s work on it. I welcome the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) did on it, and the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is in her place, and everyone else at the Department for Work and Pensions. The excellent paper covers joint supporting, the promotion of mental and physical health, and occupational health support. I want all those things to be put in place, because I know that they will be of great benefit to many of my constituents. The Green Paper does not, however, cover the question of costs, and that is why I support the motion.

I want to make some constructive proposals for the Government to consider. I want them to consider modifying or postponing the changes while the proposals are consulted on and put into practice. Let us see them work: let us see people get into work more quickly before we actually remove the additional support. Let us also consider maintaining an element of support above JSA, specifically to cover the particular costs that people face, especially if they have been on the standard rate of ESA, as they will have been for a short period. It should not be indeterminate and indefinite. A discretionary fund has been used in other areas, so let us consider introducing one that is substantial enough to cover those additional costs for people in the WRAG.

I know that the Minister is listening. She has shown that in her responses to me both privately and publicly. I urge her to continue to listen, particularly to the points made by Members in this debate.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, I say that this issue matters and that the Lords are right for two reasons: it matters because of the principle and it matters because of the evidence. It is possible to be poor and in work in our country, and it is possible to be poor and do well at school in our country, and it matters what those people’s lives are like. We must not forget about being transparent about the poverty in our country. It is the cause of ill health and distress, and that is why in principle it matters. The evidence says that money matters, alongside a good education and a healthy life, to outcomes. So if we do not act on money, we embed disadvantage in our country. Therefore, let us not say to those who work too hard for too little, “You don’t count.” Let us not say to children doing well at school despite poverty at home, “You don’t count.” On behalf of those families and all families and their children, I ask the Government to think again.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I would like to address Lords amendments 8 and 9 and the question of employment and support allowance and the work-related activity group, which is the group of people who currently have limited capacity for work.

I support the Government’s intention to enable more people who are on ESA to go back into work, but, as the Minister said, that is not happening, with only 1% per month of that group of nearly 500,000 people returning to work. The Government’s proposal to combat that is to remove the additional amount paid, starting from the 14th week, to people assessed as being within that group, and at the same time they wish to introduce a completely new system of support designed to help people back into work. The new system of support will be set out in a White Paper, which has not yet been published. What we do know is that the system is expected eventually to be funded with approximately £100 million a year, and I will come back to that.

That White Paper is incredibly important to the matter we are discussing, because it is the replacement for what the Government are proposing to remove. I would like to set out four things that I believe the new system of support that the Government are proposing must have within it.

First, it must ensure that people’s assessments are done much more quickly than at present. Currently, people are waiting for assessments for months, and during that time they receive just the basic assessment rate, which is the equivalent of jobseeker’s allowance, regardless of whether they eventually go into the WRAG or the support group. For those whose condition means they have costs additional to what is assumed for those on JSA—for instance, as has been mentioned, energy bills—that can mean a struggle to pay those costs. That can lead to their going into debt, regardless of whether they eventually go into the support group or the WRAG, or indeed into neither. I believe that all work capability assessments should be completed well within the 13 weeks for which claimants are on the assessment rate so that they are not put at a disadvantage by the slowness of the system. I would like to see clear evidence in the White Paper that that is going to happen, because it would benefit not just people going into the WRAG but people going into the support group.

Secondly, the assessments themselves need to be more sensitive. That particularly applies to people with mental health conditions, who are about 50% of those in the WRAG. That is another reason for ensuring that people have their assessments rapidly. If they have mental health conditions and need support, the earlier they receive it, the better. As the noble Baroness Meacher said in the other place:

“Common sense tells us that someone with an anxiety disorder or depression will find rising debts and the prospect of eviction from their home impossible to cope with.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1306.]

Thirdly, the new system of support will need to be based on clear evidence of what works for people, so I ask the Minister whether the proposals in the White Paper will be piloted to see whether they work, or whether they will be based on current best practice. If it is the former, there is little time, as they will need to be in place by April 2017.

Fourthly, the new system must include a full and accessible scheme for cash payments over and above the assessment rate to meet additional costs if people have them. I have already referred to the extra energy costs arising from people having to stay at home much more as a result of their illness or disability. There may also be costs for special diets and so on. I mention accessibility because I have seen schemes where support is available but very difficult to obtain—people have to jump through hoops to get it. Anyone who is assessed for the WRAG under the new system should therefore automatically be asked about additional costs resulting from their condition that are not covered by PIP. Those costs should be evaluated rapidly and, if accepted, met. When the White Paper is published, I will look for it to address those four points.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has made thoughtful points. Does he not accept that the problem is that we are being asked tonight to vote to take financial support away from people, without the safeguards that he has outlined being known? It is like taking a jump in the dark, and the Prime Minister has told us that that is not a good thing to do.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

It is like that, and I would have preferred to see an assessment such as I proposed in the amendment that I tabled on Report. I hoped that perhaps the Lords would take that up, because it is important. To some extent, it is an act of faith in the Government and in the White Paper, and that is why I am setting out these points now. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said, we hope to see action on them.

I have already talked about accessibility, which is extremely important. When somebody is assessed for a group, they should be asked about accessibility instead of being referred to somewhere they might find difficult or somewhere they do not even know. That should be part of the assessment process and run by the Department for Work and Pensions, not other Departments

When the White Paper is published, which I hope will be as soon as possible, I will be looking for it to address all those points. If it does, the system may well work better for people on ESA who can move back into work. Let us remember that this is about people who have limited capacity for work, not people who cannot work, who must continue to be in the support group and receive the support supplement.

The risks of a scheme that does not meet those criteria are considerable, first and foremost for the people involved, who may end up in limbo, neither helped into work nor able to meet even their basic living costs. They may end up in the support group long term, which is not in their interest or the public interest.

This will cost more than £100 million per annum, which is what has been allocated—probably considerably more. But if the Government are serious about supporting people back into work, as I know they are, a good scheme that is initially more expensive will both be better for those who need support and probably cost the taxpayer less in the long run. I therefore urge the Chancellor to back such a scheme with the funding it needs, and the Minister and the Secretary of State to push for it. The status quo, as embodied in the Lords amendments, is not satisfactory, but its replacement must be an improvement for those in the WRAG—we cannot afford to go backwards.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to speak to Lords amendments 1, 8 and 9. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I did not intend to say much about Lords amendment 1, but I was so incensed by the way in which the Minister dealt with the issue earlier, and by her total lack of compassion for anyone who might be affected by the measures in the Bill, that I thought I must say something. I must point out to the House the contrast between her approach and that taken by the Bishop of Durham when he moved amendment 1 in the other place, because his approach was measured, based on evidence and full of compassion and care for the people affected. He pointed out what I think is self-evident to most of us in this Chamber, which is that

“low income is an important influence on children’s outcomes and life chances”.

In fact, we have had an often bizarre discussion today in which there is the suggestion that, somehow, child poverty is about a whole collection of measures, and nothing to do with income, which is clearly ludicrous. The Bishop of Durham said that

“the Government’s concern about the current child poverty measures is that they have encouraged an overdependence on income transfers, diverting attention from policies that tackle the root causes of poverty.”

He said that, as I pointed out earlier, Lords amendment 1

“does not seek to reassert the primacy of the existing child poverty measures: it simply requires that income-based measures of poverty be reported on alongside, and on a level footing with, other life chance indicators, such as worklessness and educational attainment, in order to acknowledge the significance of family income for children’s well-being and future prospects.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1047.]

That is particularly important, because we have an assessment from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that the Government’s desire to close the fiscal deficit chiefly through spending cuts means that the prognosis for child poverty over this decade is bleak. We do not want a range of Government measures that make it more difficult for us to assess the impact of cuts on child poverty and the direct relationship between child poverty and low income. I have heard nothing from the Minister today to persuade me that she is following the right approach.