Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have visited and talked to a number of my colleagues across Europe—in Germany, Holland, Spain and France—and I have also talked to the Danish Minister. Everyone to whom I have spoken so far and many more—I see that the Poles have also come to the same conclusion—have decided that there is something fundamentally wrong with the European Commission interpretation of people’s right to access benefits in a country where they do not have residency. Recently, the Germans have tightened up in almost exactly the same way as we have done. We had all those people saying that what we were doing was terrible, but now that the Germans are doing it, those people have gone quite quiet.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is not the question of who gets a benefit from this country, or who comes to stay in this country, a matter for this Parliament, not for the EU?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point that I have been making from the beginning. We have always said to the European Commission that this matter lay outside the treaties. It is a national Government responsibility, and it is national Governments who should take that responsibility. The Opposition did very little about organising this so that they would be able to stand against the EU Commission on that basis.

Inherited Social Housing Tenancies

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

No. It is something we are having to deliver because of what we inherited from the previous Government, including a benefit, the cost of which had doubled in 10 years, and a policy that had left nearly 2 million people on housing waiting lists and 400,000 in overcrowded houses. It was a skewed policy under which people living in private rented accommodation could have their spare room subsidy removed but people who lived in the social rented sector could not. And as for people giving out wrong numbers, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, when he plucked numbers from the air in the last debate, St Helens said that he had got his numbers wrong. Now, in response to his citing a figure of 2,100 cases, Birmingham has put up on its website this statement:

“We haven’t finished identifying them at Birmingham so can’t give you an exact number, but the number of possible cases has dropped substantially below the 2,100 that was reported in the papers”.

We have trebled the discretionary housing payments. We have also said that we will cover the differences involved for people who are exempt and that we will help local authorities with the administration charges. We have answered these points and we have voted on them. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look again at the debate we had on 26 February.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How many people are affected by this problem?

[Esther McVey]

The number so far, on best records, is about 5,000. However, the cases are having to be manually checked at the moment, because of a change of computer system, and everybody is going through that. Also, a person has to be in continuous receipt of housing benefit and has to have lived in the same home since 1996.

Housing Benefit

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The facts speak for themselves: two thirds of the households hit by the bedroom tax have fallen into arrears and councils up and down the country are trying hard not to evict people, because they know it is the wrong thing to do. They are trying to help people and we should welcome that and applaud them for doing the right thing, unlike this Government, who are failing to do the right thing.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Could the hon. Lady explain why Labour in office supported a scheme just like this for private rented sector tenants?

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this scheme is retrospective in a way that the scheme for the private sector was not. The people affected by this loophole have been living in their properties since 1996. They thought they had a secure and permanent tenancy, but it turns out that they do not, because they cannot afford to live in the home they have lived in for, in some cases, their whole lives.

Job Insecurity

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is right. It is worth recalling that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition first talked about the cost of living crisis and the squeezed middle, Members on the Government Benches and their supporters ridiculed the very notion, but the existence of that living standards crisis is now undeniable. Indeed, since my right hon. Friend first talked about the squeezed middle, in 2011, I think, the people who compile the Oxford English Dictionary named it their word of the year, despite the fact that it is two words.

Words are one thing, but they are backed up by the reality of what we see in our communities. Ministers can do whatever jiggery-pokery they want with the figures, as the Chancellor did the other day when he claimed that the top decile of earners was the only decile that had lost out from his measures. In so doing, he miraculously forgot to take into account the huge tax cut he had given the top 1% at the same time as heaping a VAT rise on working families and taking away support from them.

The average employee is earning substantially less than when this Government came to office—over £1,600 less a year. It is important to remember that on Wednesday 13 February last year—almost a year ago—the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions in this House pledged that people would be better off in 2015 than in 2010, and we will hold him to that. The head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who is often cited in all parts of the House, thinks differently. He said last month:

“We will be able to say definitively—I’m pretty sure—that, come 2015, average household incomes will be lower than they were pre-recession and lower than they were in 2010.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no one working for a trade union or a Labour council is on a zero-hours contract or is a part-timer who wants a full-time job?

[Mr Umunna]

I will come on to zero-hours contracts shortly, if there is some patience on the Government Benches.

This living standards crisis is not just one of rising costs and falling wages. It is one, too, of increasing insecurity at work. People in work today feel less secure and more pressurised at work than at any time in the past 20 years, according to the most recent UK skills and employment survey. Members on the Government Benches shake their heads. It was the Government’s own UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which co-funded that survey, that described what we now have as a “climate of fear”. More recent research carried out towards the end of last year found that the number of people feeling insecure at work had almost doubled since this Government came to office, with half the working population believing that the economic policies of this Government have made them less secure.

There is a constant worry about whether people will be able to hold on to their jobs. There is a constant worry about whether they will be able to provide for themselves and their families—a continuing squeeze, yes, and an increasing amount of insecurity. That is the reality of life in this country in 2014.

Housing Benefit

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well, as ever. However, as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a matter for the Chair if the fundamental rights and liberties of this great House of Commons are damaged by a foreign court and we can do nothing about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have just said that it is not a matter for the Chair. It may be a matter for debate at some other time, but it is not a matter for the Chair and that was therefore not further to the point of order.

Pensions Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the issues that has come up in the course of all the debate about the single-tier pension is the decision that the Government have taken to bring to an abrupt end to the provisions that previously existed for women in particular—I shall talk primarily about women, although men could be in this position—to be able to derive a pension or years towards a pension from the contributions of their spouse. That dates back to a different world. When the state pension system was set up in the post-war period, there was an assumption that the standard pattern for married people was that one person, normally the man, would be the main breadwinner, and the woman would spend considerable periods out of the labour force, and perhaps not even work at all after marriage. Indeed, although they were about to go, there were still marriage bars on certain types of employment, so time out of employment was not just a question of choice; it was sometimes a question of necessity.

Things have changed and, although it can still be a necessity, for many women the amount of time out of employment can be very short. The arrangement in the original proposals was that a woman could receive a derived pension from her husband’s contributions—currently approximately 60% of the full state pension—or receive benefit if she was widowed or divorced. For someone widowed after retirement who was receiving only the 60% pension—sometimes referred to as the married couples pension when both bits are put together—it would be increased to a full single person’s pension, regardless of whether she had made contributions during her working life. For those who are divorced, there is currently provision in the system to inherit and carry over a spouse’s contribution record if it is better than one’s own. That can be beneficial to women, and some men, in building up a pension record.

Other changes that have taken place include crediting certain types of contribution that are not entirely financial. As well as the credits people receive during periods of unemployment when they are claiming benefit, successive Governments have introduced credits for periods of child care and for caring for other relatives, and that can make up some gaps. There are still some people—a decreasing number, without a doubt—who will end up in a position where they do not build up sufficient contributions in their own right. If the right to obtain these so-called derived benefits is taken away, there will be a group of people, primarily women, who, post-2016 when the new arrangements come in, will have less than they would have expected to get before that date. They will be in a worse position than they would have been previously, and that will have all sorts of consequences.

People have reasonable expectations of the rules. Age UK gave an example of someone who had specifically asked the Department for Work and Pensions for advice on whether she should start making contributions relatively late in her working life. She was told not to do so, because she would not be able to work to receive nearly as much as she would be getting in any event. That advice was given in good faith and at the time she accepted it in good faith, but it is now too late for her to make up the difference.

The Government estimate that there are 40,000 women in this position. I am not sure whether there is certainty about that figure, because I do not know whether a full survey has been carried out. However, 40,000 is not a huge number. New clause 5 asks for a full review to ascertain how many women are in this position and what the cost would be of allowing them to continue to benefit from derived rights for a transition period—it would not be for ever.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady have any idea how much money, on average, these ladies might be losing?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not know off the top of my head, which is why I am asking for a review. We might be talking about 40,000 women who clearly will not be getting a full pension, but certain of them will have made some contributions; it is not that they will have no contributions. The Work and Pensions Select Committee looked at this and recommended transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of the state pension age when the new arrangements came into force. It is not for ever, it would not go on and on, with a very long tail; but it would provide for those who quite reasonably made plans on the basis of particular expectations.

I have heard two arguments from the Government. The first was a generalisation about how the world had changed. Yes, of course it has changed, and we are not talking about most or all women doing this for ever. Just saying, “Well, the world’s changed”, is not a good enough answer to the fact that some women will suffer detriment if transitional arrangements are not put in place. The second argument was that apparently—I am not sure any figures have been offered up—an increasing number of these women were living abroad. It conjured up images of women much younger than their husbands and living abroad—I do not know whether the Minister had Filipino brides in mind. Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the DWP to ensure that people do not take undue advantage. Like I said, these arrangements would not last for ever.

There are a variety of reasons why somebody might not have contributed. They might have made a positive choice not to contribute or they might have been doing voluntary or care work before credits were allowed or without appreciating that they were allowed—we know that a lot of people are eligible for carer’s credits who have not claimed them. There are a variety of reasons. Others will have been in very low-paid or short-hours part-time work and earning below the level of contribution, and they might have concluded that it did not matter too much because of the derived right.

We debated this matter in Committee and I hope that the Government will this time be prepared to accept my new clause. Then, when we have carried out the review, a decision could be made about whether to proceed with transitional arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

The reason is that, in 1947, we were not expecting to get inflation. If we did not have inflation, we would not have the problem. If the Government say that they will not provide exceptions to clause 20 and that no pensioner overseas will get an increase, at least we would have consistency. But that is not what the Minister is proposing. It might be helpful if he could confirm that either now, or if and when he comes to speak.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the requirement to uprate in the European Union countries is a European requirement that the Government can do nothing about or a Government choice?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Government chose and Parliament endorsed that we would have free movement of people and of benefits in this sense, but the Secretary of State will no doubt be able to answer my right hon. Friend with greater certainty. The essential point is that as a country joins the EU—or even EFTA—the entitlement to increases in pensions comes with it.

When preparing my thoughts on this matter, I might have anticipated that the Prime Minister would say that he would give consideration to calls for a wider review of the issue. I might also have expected him to conclude that he was not minded to pursue such a review at this time. That is the gentlest form of saying no that I have come across.

I suspect that, as and when we extend voting rights to British nationals living overseas, either for a period of 15 years or for even longer, as many other countries do, our Members of Parliament who represent those overseas resident voters will start putting the pressure on, and that change will come. The Prime Minister might be anticipating that. He might see the sense and justice of such a change, but, given his position, he has to say no to a lot of popular causes. Perhaps the justice element for which is so rightly praised in the Commonwealth has not quite come to his mind yet.

In fact, I received a letter from the Prime Minister about half an hour ago confirming what I had anticipated. He has said that

“the case for not departing from the position of successive Governments is clear.”

I have already pointed out how the position has changed in respect of the reciprocal arrangements. His letter goes on:

“To do so would cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when the pressure on a welfare system is considerable and when we are asking many people who live in the UK to make sacrifices.”

That could be an argument for cutting off increases for all overseas pensioners, but that is not going to happen. The anomaly will continue. It has carried on from 1972 to 2013. If I am still here in 20 years’ time, will Ministers still be trotting out the same arguments that they used in 1972? I jolly well hope not.

I pay tribute to the leaders of the International Consortium of British Pensioners in Canada and Australia. They have had work done by Oxford Economics to make the case for the health care savings. We all know that the majority of costs to the national health service are incurred by people in the last years and weeks of their lives. Which of the people living overseas are the most likely to return to this country for their end-of-life health care? I suggest that it is those living in the United States, whose insurance might have run out and who cannot meet the costs, and people in Europe who might want to return to this country to be treated in a health service they know and in a language they are used to. I doubt that many people would come back from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Canada.

The health care question was what prompted us to call for the whole of Government review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who came with me last week when the Prime Minister very kindly gave us the opportunity to put some of these points to him.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

That just goes to show that we are all in this together—or rather, we are not.

I have seen the graphs and the charts showing that the poorest are being hardest hit. We should consider the effect of a 5% cut in their weekly income. Other Members have spoken about the sort of cuts that individuals are going to experience. I do not know whether the Minister, other Front Benchers or even Conservative Back Benchers know what it is like to exist on £71 a week, but it is a real struggle. Taking up to £25 a week from the poorest families, most of whom are in social housing, can mean a choice between eating or having proper heating. How can this be fair, when the Government’s priority is to make millionaires richer, to the tune of £2,000 a week? Such a tax cut is unimaginable for someone who would be sanctioned under the Work programme. In fact, the £2,000 a week tax cut for millionaires that we anticipate tomorrow equates to 28 weeks’ income for somebody on jobseeker’s allowance.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman just remind the House why Labour always had a lower rate of tax for rich people than this Government?

[Grahame M. Morris]

We need to look at the situation we are in now. This is the wrong thing to do: it is unjust and unfair to give millionaires a £2,000 a week tax cut, at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government propose to deprive some of the poorest people, who have been illegally sanctioned, of large chunks of their income. It is outrageous, and it is rank hypocrisy for anyone to talk about rights with the emphasis on responsibility when it comes to workfare. If they are willing to undermine the judiciary and the rule of law, and vote for retrospective legislation to cover up the mistakes and failings of the Minister, who is asking that we legislate to place him above the law, that is a dangerous precedent to establish.

I cannot, in all conscience, support this desperate Bill, put forward by a desperate Government who have broken their own laws and now wish to forgo their legal obligations and withhold social security payments of £130 million to some of the poorest people in the country. Why do we not apply that method across the board? If the national emergency is such that it is right to deny access to social security to those who are entitled to it in order to safeguard the national economy, why do we not chase the tax exiles—those powerful individuals who own newspapers and luxury hotels, who pay no corporation tax and who have laid siege to a small Channel Island? I understand that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has already paid out more than £200 million to two such individuals who are now seeking a £1 billion VAT windfall at the taxpayer’s expense. Government Members are silent about such things. As we know, there is one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor, including those who have been illegally sanctioned through the Work programme.

We are in the sorry situation of the Minister blackmailing hon. Members by threatening a collective punishment for all those in receipt of social security and welfare benefits if these changes do not go through, because the Department might have to find the money through further reductions elsewhere in its budget. I thought that it was the Secretary of State for Education and his advisers who were the bullies. It is now obvious that the Department for Work and Pensions has decided to sink to those standards by threatening Members of the House in this way, which is below what we would expect of a responsible Government and a responsible Minister.

I did not come into Parliament to penalise and punish the vulnerable and the poor for the mistakes of the Government. The Department for Work and Pensions seems to be in a state of chaos. It is trying to save money by issuing unlawful sanctions for a Work programme that is not fit for purpose. It is making arbitrary cuts to disability living allowance and employment and support allowance, and is seeking to reduce the case load by 20%. Through the bedroom tax, it is cutting the incomes of disabled people and families with children. The welfare state under this coalition Government in 2013 is failing at every turn.

What we are seeing today is an abuse of power. This is an appalling Bill. I urge the Minister to take responsibility for his actions, even at this late stage, to put a stop to the Bill and to pay those who were unlawfully sanctioned because of his failings. I will vote against the Bill and I urge other hon. Members to do the same.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The changes are long overdue, and I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not explain why the last Government did nothing about resolving the issue. He says that we should not be partisan, but he just has made a very partisan statement when an apology was all he needed to make. He needed only to say that he was sorry for the mess Labour left us in.

What we are talking about will have no practical effect on the implementation of universal credit, which, by the way, is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans. On the contributory principle—this is the point I wanted to make to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—there is no magic wand. Let us bear it in mind that if it was a blanket contributory principle, we would end up paying a lot of benefits, such as winter fuel payments—an issue that, as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) knows, was not resolved by his Government—to lots of people who had long since departed Britain. We are considering the matter, and universal credit will give us an ideal opportunity to embrace tax credits and, through this requirement, to start the process of change so that we can resist the pressure of paying tax credits—because they would no longer exist—to people who come to the UK for the first time and claim to be self-employed. That is the area I am looking at.

We need no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about prosecutions for minimum wage infringements. The last Government’s record on this was so bad I wonder why the Opposition bother mentioning it at the Dispatch Box. We are trying to change it, and will change it, whereas the last Government gave way on every single issue in Europe from the moment they arrived.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Why can the Secretary of State not propose to the House that we legislate to say that no one can get benefits unless they can demonstrate a suitable contribution record or have spent at least 10 years in full-time education in the UK?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I said earlier, that is the direction of travel we are trying to head in. We are trying to change the rules, in order to make the test covering the period someone spends here and the commitment they make to the UK much tougher. We are wrestling with the habitual residence test, but it is weak in parts because it makes no requirements concerning the length of time someone commits to being in the country. That is an area we have to, and will, challenge. I want to change those rules so that the European Court recognises that someone needs to make a commitment to the country they are in before they can start drawing down.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This issue is creating a lot of passion, which I can understand. People’s homes are very important to them, and none of us wants to feel that the possession of our home is threatened or is subject to high-handed control from above. The morality of the argument, however, is not all on one side as the Opposition seem to suggest it is. Indeed, I would find their moral outrage more convincing if their Front-Bench team firmly pledged to repeal this measure if they were ever returned to office. I would also find it more convincing if when they were in office they had not taken the steps they did on private sector rented accommodation, probably as a prelude to going further.

On the basis of what the more moderate Opposition Members have said, they accept that there is a problem of under-occupation where free or subsidised accommodation is made available through the public sector. The morality on the Government side of the case is to say that we have obligations to all those people who want that subsidised or free accommodation but who cannot get it on the size and scale they need. There are two different groups here, and we need to look after the interests of both groups as best we can.

Of course there are visionaries on the Opposition side who say that the answer is easy: we just need to build hundreds of thousands of more homes at public expense so that everybody can have the accommodation they want. The issue then becomes why that did not happen when we had a Labour Government who knew how to do those things. The truth is that for anyone who sits on the Government Benches, such housing will always be a scarcer resource than people would like. If we offer something free or subsidised, there will be more demand than provision, even when we are trying to be very generous, so we must have rationing and allocation. All Governments, in good times and bad times, have had to allocate and ration public housing.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there was a period—certainly in Wigan—when we could not let council houses and they were knocked down, because people were buying houses? Our biggest problem now is that people who want to buy houses cannot get mortgages. They do not go into social housing because it is subsidised; they go there because they have nowhere else to live.

[Mr Redwood]

It is a bit of both. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady if she is urging the Government to do even more than they are currently doing to make more mortgages available so that more people can afford to buy homes. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that. I happen to know that Ministers are desperate to ensure that more mortgages are available than were available during the last few Labour years, and are working away with the banks to try to make it happen. That is very much part of the solution to the housing problem. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to go into fits of hysterics, but they really should try to take a serious interest in the problem. Believe it or not, quite a lot of us Conservatives want better housing solutions for many of our constituents, and for people in other parts of the country.

[Katy Clark]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there was a very different view of social housing in the past? Council housing used not to be seen as a precious resource. For example, at the time of the 1951 general election the Conservatives pledged to build 300,000 new homes. There was a view across the political divide that we should build council housing to improve social conditions. Is that not the vision that we should have now?

[Mr Redwood]

I seem to remember that the Conservative Government did indeed honour their pledge—and that was many more homes than the Labour Government were building each year—but, even in those days, why did they need to do it? They needed to do it because we were short of homes. It was the post-war period, the Germans had remodelled many of our housing estates, and trying to create the homes that people needed was a big problem.

I think that under-occupation is a problem, and I think that the Government have come up with one part of the answer, but I urge Ministers to listen carefully to all those who are saying that the positive way of proceeding is through incentive, encouragement, persuasion, and giving people a better answer than the one they currently have, which may be a larger property that may not be suitable.

The Government have excluded everyone of pension age from the proposals, and I welcome that. I think that it is smart politics, and very sensitive to the elderly population. However, in my constituency, where most people own their homes—elderly people tend to own them without mortgages, and younger people tend to own them with rather big and difficult mortgages—a good many elderly residents decide to sell the family home because it has become too big and unmanageable, and to buy a smaller property such as a flat or bungalow. Many then sell again when they are becoming more frail, and move to semi-sheltered or supported accommodation.

That is a natural process of trading down in the private sector, but there is sometimes too much of an obstacle for elderly people in social housing to be able to do the same. Perhaps not enough of the right properties are available; perhaps they are not offered in the right way; perhaps there should be some incentive. I think it perfectly acceptable to try to create an atmosphere in which there can be the same sensible mobility in public sector housing as occurs naturally in areas with rather more private sector housing, so that elderly people can have housing more suited to their needs.

I hope that Ministers will consider the question of elderly under-occupation, which I think is very much part of the story, but will do so in a positive way that encourages, promotes and helps, rather than removing benefit or imposing a tax. I wish that the Opposition understood the meaning of the word “tax”. Imposing a tax means taking money from people who are earning it for themselves; it does not mean paying them less benefit. I hope that Ministers will work out an answer to that soundbite. I have heard soundbite arguments before, but I congratulate the Labour party on thinking up a brilliant and misleading one. I am afraid that it is better than the soundbites we have heard so far from this side of the House, and I urge my hon. Friends to come up with a soundbite that represents the truth. This is not a bedroom tax, but a reduction in the amount of benefit paid, which is very different.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I am afraid that I cannot give way again. I am running out of time, and if I give way I will not be given any injury time.

We need to look at the issue of under-occupation among the elderly, and we need then to look at the issue of the disabled. That was why I approached this debate with considerable nervousness. As I think my hon. Friends know, I wish us to be more generous to the disabled, not less generous, and I think we all feel a little nervous about how far we should go. I was somewhat reassured to see that there are different definitions of disability and a rather wider definition is being used than would, perhaps, be normal. I am interested in the people who are seriously disabled, as recognised through the receipt of disability benefit.

I urge my ministerial friends to be as generous as possible. We must not presume that there is an easy solution, however. Again, if there are issues that need to be sorted out, the best way to do that is through support and persuasion and offering people something better. That must be the aim. Why would somebody move if their new home is going to be worse than their current one? If it can be shown that there would be better, more appropriate and better supported accommodation, however, I might be more willing to accept that we should follow the proposed course of action. I urge my ministerial friends to be extremely careful about the definition of the disability category, however.

One Opposition Member argued that this is a cynical policy and there might not be many savings if it works. That is a misunderstanding of the true nature of the policy. It is not primarily a public spending-cut policy; it is a policy designed to try to get more people into public sector housing that is suitable for them. That is the bigger picture.

We have an inadequate amount of housing stock, and some people have more of it than they strictly need, whereas others do not have as much of it as they strictly, technically need on the needs definition. We are arguing here about the balance between those two groups, and whether it would be feasible to solve the overall shortage by producing more housing. Even the Labour party must understand that if we were to go for the big build answer, that would take several years to come through. Ministers are feeling very frustrated at present that they have identified places for building and the means of financing that building, but it is taking a very long time to get the building to come through so we can start to tackle this problem.

My next topic is how to tackle the problems of insufficient housing and excess welfare spending. The issue of eligibility is key. My constituents tell me that they feel much more inclined to pay taxes to make sure that people who have been settled in this country for many years, or who have been born and brought up here, can get access to proper housing than to provide housing for people who have only just arrived and seem to know how to work the system to get access to housing. The Government could productively focus on that. I am sure there will be European Union rules, but we need to negotiate on this with our European partners, and make a stand if necessary, because there is a strong feeling in our country that public housing will be limited—more limited than some would like—and if we are to make choices, the priority must be those who have been here for some time and who have made a contribution and are part of our settled community. That does not always seem to be the case. I hope Ministers will see the issue of eligibility as a proper avenue for addressing both excess benefit expenditure and the shortage of available property.

These are difficult waters. Anyone who looks at the situation rationally will agree that there is under-occupation and we need to tackle it sensitively. They will also agree that we need more housing provision overall, and we need to do what we can to tackle that. I hope we can all agree that the best answer is to find a way to enable more people to enjoy what every MP takes for granted. We take it for granted that we have a well-paid job and that we can afford to buy a house. I think that every MP owns a property. Indeed, some of them own rather more than one property, I believe, and that has sometimes become a matter of comment. It is normal for an MP to own a property—to be an owner-occupier—and to enjoy a good income, and I am sure most MPs own a spare room or two.

I do not think there is anything wrong with people striving, getting a better job, earning more money and having spare rooms. I am personally very much in favour of spare rooms when people can afford to have them. We also need to make sure we have a fair tax system so that we are all making a decent contribution to those who cannot afford spare rooms.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many spare rooms he has in his house—or has he not got round to counting them yet?

[Mr Redwood]

My spare rooms are a matter for me because I paid for them myself, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has spare rooms and I dare say he paid for them himself. That is exactly the kind of society we all want to live in, I would have thought. I do not know of any Labour MPs who could stand up and say that they are at the minimum accommodation level—I invite them to do so, but I do not see anyone rushing to stand up.

[Mr Russell Brown]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman stands up but he has no voice. I think that means he does not want to say that he has the minimum accommodation available or thought specific to certain people.

I want to live in an aspiration society. We want to promote better jobs, better paid jobs and more people owning their own home. Where that is not possible, we need a fair distribution; we need to provide more and to distribute it more fairly. I just hope that Opposition parties, if they have serious aims to be in power one day, will think more carefully before pledging to repeal things, or will come up with better ideas on how we can promote that better use of the housing stock that must make sense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is confusing two answers. The answer that she received from the Treasury—from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—was to do with checking against the references of the accredited companies. That was a process that was looking for 80%, and it was achieving just over 75%. What my hon. Friend the Minister was saying was that the number of companies being brought on to the pilot was exactly in line with the number that is there. I can promise the hon. Lady that, if she really wants me to, I will give her a written answer to that question as well.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is the Secretary of State looking favourably on the idea that workers coming here from Europe to earn a living should have to establish a contribution record over a reasonable period of time before becoming eligible to receive benefits?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) and others are engaged on this matter with our European partners. We do not think it right that somebody who has made no contribution to this country should be able to walk in here on day one and take benefits, as is being proposed. I promise my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I will not allow that to happen.