Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I echo and support what my hon. Friend says, and he is right to laud what Becky and her team are doing. He will be aware that over the past few years, Citizens Advice in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has done fantastic work and plays a hugely valuable role in rolling out the Help to Claim scheme across the United Kingdom.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T4.   I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome his team of Ministers on to the Treasury Bench. He will understand that lots of people, including many, many people in east Hull, work incredibly hard and incredibly long hours, but despite all their efforts still rely on benefits. Does he agree that it would be incredibly mean if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now to row back on the commitment of uprating benefits in line with inflation?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber during questions for long enough to know that I cannot comment on the uprating or otherwise of benefits. However, he should take into account the numerous positive tax changes that there have been over the years for the hard-working constituents he refers to—not least the very significant increase in the personal allowance since 2010 and the change to the taper under universal credit, which makes a difference to many millions of people up and down the land.

Carer’s Allowance

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered carer’s allowance.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank all the Members who have taken the time to attend this incredibly important and timely debate.

It is no exaggeration to describe unpaid carers as the backbone of the social care system and of communities up and down the country. In caring for relatives and loved ones, their dedication ensures thousands of people living with disability or illness are able to live with dignity and respect. They are vital and their work is crucially important to society, but too often they are not treated with the decency and respect they deserve or given credit for their work, not just in caring for people but in benefiting wider society.

There are an estimated 11.5 million unpaid carers across the UK, with over 900,000 of them putting in the minimum 35 hours to receive the carer’s allowance of just £67.60 per week. It is a crying shame that their efforts are so poorly recognised. Meagre as it might be, the benefit is crucial in allowing carers to perform their vital service, which would simply not be possible otherwise. However, working outside those caring responsibilities not only brings home much-needed wages, but we know there are many benefits from keeping in touch with the workplace, including carers’ identities and self-esteem, and social engagement outside their full-time caring role.

Were carers not providing the care that they provide, and the state were forced to step in instead, the cost to the Treasury would be extremely high. The charity Carers UK estimates the economic value of unpaid care provided over the two years of the pandemic at more than £380 billion—that is more than the entire NHS budget over the same period. Given the vital importance of unpaid carers and the allowance that helps them do what they do, I was utterly appalled when my constituent, Mr Steve Spamer, wrote to me recently to explain the changes the Government will impose on him just a few weeks from now.

Steve is registered blind, and has been for many years. Not only does his wife provide round-the-clock care, but to make ends meet she works two jobs, up to the maximum hours permitted by the allowance’s earning threshold. She does six hours cleaning in the local pub and eight hours in the local shop, on top of providing full-time care. Working 14 hours at the national minimum wage rate comes to £124.74 per week, just under the current earnings threshold of £128.

Next month, the minimum wage will rise by just under 7% to £9.50 an hour. While this is not enough to address the cost of living crisis, an issue that I will come back to shortly, it is of course welcome. As a passionate believer in the minimum wage, I am glad to see it rise. The carer’s allowance will go up too, by approximately 3% to £69.70 per week. Again, that is a far cry from where it should be, in my view. Members across the House, especially Ministers in London, should have frank conversations with themselves about whether they could survive on that sum. None the less, we welcome the increase.

The earnings threshold will rise by the same rate. The issue for Mr Spamer and his family, who will certainly not be alone, is that the rise in the minimum wage and in the earnings threshold simply do not match up, forcing them, and many others, into an impossible dilemma. The Minister might respond that Mrs Spamer could reduce her hours so that she does not exceed the earnings threshold. That is all well and good, but this is the real world, not a spreadsheet. She cannot work just one hour less; she would have to give up one of those jobs entirely. Even if that were the smaller job—at the pub, for example, at six hours a week—that is a loss of £57, nearly £200 a month. That is comparatively a fortune to the family, and the difference between having something to eat, putting grub in their tummies, and not turning on the central heating.

The only other option is to give up the carer’s allowance, because if the earnings threshold is exceeded by just £1, 100% of the benefit is removed. That is the harshest withdrawal rate in the entire welfare system. That is the choice, though it can hardly be called that, that the Spamers and thousands of other families now face, cut back by £200 or £280 a month. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in the face of a devastating cost of living crisis, soaring inflation, sky-rocketing energy bills, and a Chancellor more interested in publicity stunts than putting money in the pockets of working people.

It is worth bearing in mind that the £20 universal credit uplift shamefully did not apply to those on legacy benefits, including carer’s allowance. People in this position have received even less support than others. The Minister knows all of this. I was grateful to have had the opportunity earlier today to speak to her briefly about what I wished to raise, so I know this will come as no surprise.

I also wrote to her six weeks ago, to raise the Spamers’ case. I had hoped that the discrepancy between the national minimum wage and the carer’s allowance earnings threshold rises was a simple, honest oversight, rather than a catastrophic, seemingly deliberate omission, affecting unpaid carers. Sadly, the reply I received confirmed that the Department for Work and Pensions was proceeding exactly as intended, and would only consider further changes to the earnings limit

“where they are warranted and affordable”.

The Minister needs to have a long, hard think about how those words sound to families up and down the country, frankly doing the work of heroes, caring for people who are incredibly ill, some who might be near death, and saving the country an absolute fortune. In recent years, consensus has been reached in this House and the country on the need, though not the method, for root and branch reform of the social care system. A conversation on how the carer’s allowance fits in to that picture is long overdue.

Mr Spamer and his family, and all the thousands of people like them, should not be subject to a drawn-out review and consultation. They are staring down the barrel of the gun in just a few weeks’ time. The bare minimum I ask of the Minister today, without fudges and caveats, is to fix this punishing anomaly. Match up the rates and do not punish those who have done absolutely nothing but good for their family and society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am afraid I need to make progress.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) argued that we need to increase the rate of carer’s allowance even further to reflect the current rate of inflation, rather than last September’s rate of CPI. Of course, the Secretary of State undertakes an annual review of benefits and pensions; and CPI in the year to September, as published by the Office for National Statistics, is the latest figure that the Secretary of State can use to allow sufficient time for the needed legislative and operational changes before new rates can be introduced at the start of the new financial year.

Let me turn to the carer’s allowance earnings limit. Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the limit throughout the debate and argued that it ought to be increased. Carer’s allowance has an earnings limit, which permits carers to undertake some part-time work if they are able to do so. This recognises the benefits of staying in touch with the workplace, including greater financial independence and social interaction. In many cases, carers are keen to work, so we want to encourage them to combine some paid work with their caring duties, if they wish to do so and wherever possible. That is why we regularly increase the earnings limit.

The limit for those in receipt of carer’s allowance will increase to £132 net earnings a week from this year, which means that the earnings limit will have increased by about a third since 2010. Many of those who are receiving carer’s allowance and doing some work will also be receiving universal credit. In those cases, the 55% taper rate and any applicable work allowance will help to ensure that people are better off in work, which means more generous treatment in universal credit of earnings above the carer’s allowance earnings limit.

Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the increases in fuel bills, which I absolutely recognise. The Government acknowledge that people are facing pressures with the cost of living, including rising fuel and heating costs, and Members will know about the measures announced in the spring statement last week, which build on the existing support that the Government provide and will be worth over £22 billion.

A number of schemes are in place to help with heating costs, depending on carers’ circumstances. They include the winter fuel payment, the cold weather payment and the warm home discount. I recognise the argument made by the hon. Members for Salford and Eccles and for Bolton South East about extending the warm home discount to carers. I think they will know that colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently consulted on the scheme and announced that automatic rebates will be extended from those getting the guarantee credit in pension credit to include other low-income households whose homes are fuel inefficient.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and others made the point that it is important that carers apply for all the support that might be available to them. Many working-age carers receive means-tested benefits as well as carer’s allowance, and I have already mentioned universal credit. Pensioner carers may be able to receive pension credit, which includes an additional amount for carers. Very importantly, receiving a means-tested benefit can act as a passport to other support, so if carers are not already receiving a means-tested benefit, I encourage them to look at gov.uk or to seek other advice, to see whether they might be entitled to that.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister clarify the percentage increase that was asked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)?

[Chloe Smith]

Which percentage increase?

[Karl Turner]

I think there was a mention of 3.1%, but I am not sure if I heard the Minister properly.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that as the September CPI figure. Yes, I can confirm that the figure is 3.1%.

I want to add a point about the personal independence payment. For some households where caring is taking place, it will be highly relevant. It is extremely relevant to the point that several Members have made about the extra costs that disabled people face. That is recognised, and it is exactly what the personal independence payment is for. Again, I encourage carers to ensure that they or their household look at that.

The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Worsley and Eccles South raised points about the end of life. I want to make sure that hon. Members are aware that the Government are improving the so-called special rules for terminal illness and end of life. Two statutory instruments have already been laid and primary legislation will follow to ensure that, across five benefits, that when they are in those very challenging circumstances people can get the support they need earlier.

Some hon. Members mentioned disabled or unwell children. I want to make sure that colleagues are aware of the special educational needs and disabilities review that was published yesterday. Low-income families with seriously ill or disabled people will be further supported through £27.3 million of funding next year, which could help pay for equipment, goods or services that those families might not otherwise be able to afford.

Let me move on to the position for Scotland and Wales. Hon. Members have asked why the Administrations differ in their approach. The UK Government’s focus is to support those carers most in need through universal credit. In Scotland, as mentioned by the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Glasgow East, additional amounts are paid to carers by the Scottish Government through their carer’s allowance supplement, using their powers under devolution and their own resources. That is done regardless of the carer’s means. We think it is a better approach to focus extra support on carers on the lowest incomes, and I have already mentioned how that is done through universal credit.

I acknowledge the desire of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley to expand devolved powers in Wales, as well. I do not have time to engage fully with that point today, but I understand the arguments she makes and I look forward to responding to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report.

The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned how unpaid carers had been supported during the pandemic and spoke about the policy on lateral flow tests. I want to ensure that she is aware that my Department worked with the NHS and Public Health England to share data so that unpaid carers had priority access to vaccines. It was very important for different parts of Government to work together to do such things for the benefit of those who needed the vaccinations the most at that time. I will ensure that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are aware of the points raised by the hon. Lady about lateral flow tests.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion to leave enough time for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East to close his debate. We all agree that society relies on unpaid carers in many ways. They are appreciated and deeply important in their households. We recognise the challenges they face and we are helping carers with the rises in the cost of living, reforming social care and helping carers to stay in work. We are spending record amounts on the carer’s allowance and providing unpaid carers with the help and support that they need and deserve. I am grateful for the range of points that have been made today, all of which will be very helpful in examining how we need to go forward. I hope that the contributions made today will help carers to know that we in this Chamber are thinking of them. Thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Bardell.

[Karl Turner]

I thank you personally, Ms Bardell, for allowing me to leave the Chamber to speak on the P&O statement by the Secretary of State in the main Chamber. I thank all Members for attending and for their incredibly instructive contributions to the debate. We all have constituents who are—if I can put it like this—truly at the sharp end of this anomaly.

I thank the shadow Minister, my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who has been incredibly helpful in helping me to prepare for the debate. Some of this stuff, frankly, is quite complex. I have benefited from her incredible knowledge in this area.

I know the Minister a bit, and I think that she cares. I do not intend to be personal. However, the people who rely on this support are at the sharp end. They truly do not know whether they can afford to live; some of them are worried about using their electricity supply, which they need to operate the apparatus that is keeping their loved ones in the family home. Frankly, I am not convinced that the Government care quite enough. This is not a lifestyle choice. As we have heard, it could happen to any one of us—we could end up being a carer. People do not choose to do it. They do it because they need to, and they provide the most valuable service to society.

I know that the Minister has the power. She can leave here now, go to her Department and make changes that will affect these carers so that they do not have to rely on Treasury civil servants and Ministers and their spreadsheets that say no. Actions can be taken, and I very much hope she will do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered carer’s allowance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on these matters, but we also have a doughty Pensions Minister who is working incredibly hard to increase the take-up. I also highlight to him that, as I am sure he knows, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments are also available to help pensioners on low incomes over the winter period.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the state pension in tackling pensioner poverty; and if she will make a statement.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the state pension in tackling pensioner poverty; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome the newcomers to the Opposition Front Bench.

The state pension is the foundation of support for older people and, under this Government, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension will be more than £2,300 higher in April than in 2010. The latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty compared with 2009-10.

[Karl Turner]

Fred from east Hull was left without any income whatsoever for several months earlier this year because the Department for Work and Pensions failed to pay him his state pension, to which he was rightfully entitled. When my office intervened, he eventually got paid, but it took us several weeks to sort it out. When people such as Fred in areas like mine are already facing a cost of living crisis, fuel poverty and the effects of the pandemic, does the Minister feel that he should apologise to Fred and many others?

[Guy Opperman]

I cannot comment on the individual case, but I can say that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a backlog over the summer period by reason of covid and many other factors, which we took great steps to address. A dedicated team of several hundred individuals ensured that we caught up with the backlog, and we are now operating business as usual.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

3. If she will reverse her Department’s planned removal of the £20 uplift to the standard allowance of universal credit. [R]

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

14. If she will reverse her Department’s planned removal of the £20 uplift to the standard allowance of universal credit.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

As was announced by the Chancellor at the March Budget, the £20 temporary uplift will come to an end within the next month.

[Karl Turner]

Time and again, the Government have promised investment into areas such as east Hull, but the Minister knows full well that this savage cut to universal credit will pull £35 million from our local economy and leave families worrying about putting food on the table to feed their kids. Is it not time that the Government matched their rhetoric with actions and cancelled the cut for decent, hard-working people?

[Dr Coffey]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, at the time of the Budget the uplift was always advocated to be temporary, recognising that the pandemic’s lockdown elements were not over. We did extend it for a further six months, as we did other covid-related support for people. I remind him that when we had Labour’s crisis in the late noughties, that Government did not make any changes to benefits. We are proud that we did so in that temporary time.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I have given way numerous times. I am conscious that, as the shadow Secretary of State repeatedly said, 90 speakers want to get into this debate, and I have spoken for nearly half an hour, which is more, I am sure, than the House can endure.

We are under no illusion but that we must continue to work together to resolve issues as they arise and ensure a successful roll-out. I want to improve the system. I want constantly to refine the system. I want to make changes where necessary to test and learn and improve. I am determined to do that. I have made an announcement today along those lines about telephone lines.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

We all welcome the Government’s concession on the premium phone line, but I met the CAB on Monday and it tells me that advisers are sometimes waiting up to half an hour to get through. Would the Secretary of State consider an MP-type hotline for advisers from the CAB and other welfare advisers?

[Mr Gauke]

First, we have never had a premium line; it is the same sort of system that one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would find if he called him and booked into a constituency surgery. It has never been a premium line, but we are changing it. On the average waiting times, I think that in September it was five minutes and 40 seconds. As for his particular proposal, let me take that away. Very often the CAB needs to call the local jobcentre rather than the national centre, because if it wants to deal with an individual case, dealing with the jobcentre would be more helpful.

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this debate and on the important case she made from the Dispatch Box.

I wish to challenge some of the assertions the Secretary of State has made in commenting on the changes in the regulations since they were announced. I have no doubt that his comments were made in good faith, but I think they were incorrect. In particular, the changes do not restore the original intention of the benefit. The Secretary of State suggested that the changes are not a cut, but they obviously are, and they affect a substantial number of people. The equality analysis produced by the Department tells us that of the current case load, 143,000 people would have had their mobility award reduced to zero had it been made under the new regulations, and that a further 21,000 would have had their payment reduced. This is not, therefore, a minor or insignificant cut; it is a substantial cut that will affect a large number of people.

Table 6 in the equality assessment is titled, “Conditions most likely affected by reversing effect of UT”—upper tribunal—“judgment on mobility activity 1”, and the list includes schizophrenia, learning disability, autism, cognitive disorder due to stroke, dementia and post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the Government, those are the people most affected.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend clearly knows something about the new regulations, and I do, too. The reality is that those with psychological illness cannot now qualify for enhanced mobility payments because activity 11e attracts only a maximum of 10 points. Twelve points are needed to allow mobility payments, so this is clearly a cut and the Government should just fess up.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right.

I wish to say a little more about the precise content of the regulations. The Secretary of State told us at the beginning of the process that nobody would have their current benefit cut; I think Ministers now accept that that statement was incorrect. Regulation 2(4) states:

“In the table in Part 3 (mobility activities), in relation to activity 1 (planning and following journeys), in descriptors c, d and f, for ‘Cannot’ substitute ‘For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot’.”

The changes explicitly carve out people who cannot plan and follow a journey because of psychological distress.

The Secretary of State has said not to worry, because people with cognitive impairments can still qualify for the highest rate of the mobility component. That may well be the case, but that is a different group of people. The changes explicitly carve out people whose mobility impairment arises from psychological distress. Was that the original intention? On 7 February 2012, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—if I remember rightly, she was the predecessor but two of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—said in a written answer that

“when considering entitlement to both rates of the mobility component we will take into account ability to plan and follow a journey, in addition to physical ability to get around. Importantly, PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 232W.]

That is a clear statement of the original intent of this benefit. If the Secretary of State has been advised that the original intention was something different, he simply needs to check the record.

The changes in the regulations are different from the original intention. They introduce an explicit judgment based on impairment type; the original intention was to have no such distinction. The regulations introduce a distinction that was not in the benefit’s original intention. They say that someone is in if they struggle to plan and follow a journey, but if their problem is because of psychological distress, they are out. It is an explicit judgment, it is explicitly contingent, and it carves out a large group of people with mental health problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

If Members will allow me, I will turn to the regulations—I will not repeat the statistics that show that PIP is more favourable than DLA for those with a mental health condition. Let me tackle the issues relating to the regulations.

Several Members have concluded that if someone is suffering from psychological distress, that would not count towards their score and they would somehow be prevented from scoring the maximum on the descriptors. That is not the case. As time is tight, perhaps I could place some case studies in the Library if that is in order, Mr Speaker. As has been pointed out, if someone is suffering from autism, PTSD, depression or a similar condition, they can score 12 points on that descriptor.

Let me cover the issues on process. We have used the most appropriate parliamentary procedure. It is set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. In the light of the significant and urgent consequences of the judgments, the amendments were passed to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 8 March—that is, after the regulations were laid. We have welcomed the Committee’s response and the fact that it did not wish to have the regulations referred to it for public consultation. We have also responded in full to the Committee’s recommendations. In particular, we have made it clear that we are committed to continuous improvement, as we recognise that it is important, for both quality and consistency, to ensure that PIP policy is clearly articulated. We have also made it clear that we will ensure that healthcare professionals who carry out the assessments fully understand what those amendments mean. The regulations were today passed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

In the seconds I have left, I reassure the House that the regulations simply restore the original aim of the policy, as previously debated, and that we are delivering PIP in line with its original intent. We stress again that the changes will not result in claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP awarded by the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations.

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I forgot to mention an indirect interest: my wife sits as a tribunal judge. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made the position clear and he has done so very quickly, and the House will have noted that.

State Pension Age: Women

Karl Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I am very sorry, but to allow time for the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to wind up, I have to continue. I am happy to discuss the matter—although not my jurisprudence degree—outside the Chamber.

I have been quite clear in public and in the House that the Government will make no further changes to the pension age of those affected by the 1995 Act and the 2011 Act, nor pay them financial redress in lieu of pension. I know that Members present do not agree with that, but I feel it is right to state our position clearly without leaving any doubt. That view has not changed.

It is important to acknowledge that state pension age increases cannot be looked at in isolation. The acceleration of the state pension age is a consequence of serious and fundamental changes that continue to affect the wider state pension system, such as the significant changes in life expectancy in recent years, the huge progress made in opening up employment opportunities for women and the wider packages of reforms that we have introduced to ensure a fair deal for pensioners.

Life expectancy, as everyone knows, has been increasing for a number of decades; people are living much longer. However, the increase in life expectancy over time has not been linear. Between 1995 and 2011—in just 16 years—remaining life expectancy at age 65 increased by 3 years for women and 4 years for men, an unprecedented increase compared with past decades. There are significant variations across council authorities and within Scotland, for instance. I could spend a lot more time going into those differences, but I feel I have made the point.

Employment prospects for women have changed dramatically since the state pension age was first set in 1940, especially for women affected by the acceleration of the state pension age. The number of older women aged 50 to 64 in work in 2016 stands at more than 4 million —a record high. Some 150,000 more older women are in work than this time last year, and 580,000 more than five years ago. In addition, independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that employment rates for women aged 60 and 61 have increased as a direct result of the changes in state pension age. Furthermore, to help older women remain in work, the Government have abolished the default retirement age.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I am really sorry but there is not enough time. Members should hear me out.

Some women may wish to continue to work but be unable to do so. The welfare system provides a safety net for those of working age, which has been ignored by many speakers, and there are a range of benefits tailored to individual circumstances. The system is designed to deal with problems ranging from difficulty in finding work to disability or ill health making work difficult, and to help those with increasing caring responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is interesting that the Opposition and the hon. Lady take the view that people moving is a bad thing. Let me just tell her—[Interruption.] It is interesting that they say that, but 30,000-plus people—I will repeat that: 30,000 people—who were in overcrowded accommodation have now had the opportunity for the first time to move into houses where they are not overcrowded. The hon. Lady and the Opposition left us with a quarter of a million people in that position—250,000—so in 10 months over 10% have had the opportunity to move and we are saving over £1 million a day. I call that a success.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

6. What steps he plans to take to tackle long-term unemployment.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

13. What steps he plans to take to tackle long-term unemployment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Those at risk of long-term unemployment are given personalised support through the Work programme. Industry figures show that it has moved half a million people into work. Jobseekers returning from the Work programme will get extra support through our new help to work scheme.

[Karl Turner]

Through the hard work of the Labour-led council and the three Hull MPs, Siemens has now said, “Hull, yes,” to a joint investment, with Associated British Ports, of £310 million, which will create 1,000 jobs, but this is not a silver bullet. We have a long-term unemployment crisis in my city. Will the Minister now support Labour’s job guarantee for the long-term unemployed?

[Esther McVey]

I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is taking full credit for the Siemens move, but I would like to think that the long-term economic plan and everything this Government have done for the last year should take some credit too. Equally, long-term unemployment in his constituency is down 20% on the year, while long-term youth unemployment in his constituency is down 34%, so I would say that what we are doing is right. Our long-term economic plan is right and I am glad that Siemens is in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The bishops’ palaces are an important part of our cultural heritage. I was in Wells recently meeting pupils of the Cathedral school benefiting from the music and dance scheme funded by the Department for Education. Wells has a proud tradition, and on this matter I will try to support her.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking in response to requests from local government for powers to prevent the clustering of betting shops and fixed odds betting terminals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government are working with local authorities on how to make best use of existing planning and licensing powers in regard to betting shops.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister agree that the clustering of betting shops and FOBTs in high streets in cities such as Hull is having a detrimental effect, and will she now support the Opposition’s call to give local authorities more power to control the number opening?

[Mrs Grant]

Local authorities already have powers, such as article 4 directions and licensing conditions. The hon. Gentleman is complaining about the number of betting shops and FOBTs on high streets, but it was his party’s Gambling Act 2005 and his party’s liberalisation and relaxing of the rules that got us into this position in the first place.

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that this is one reason why there is so much antagonism towards our membership of the European Union. This House is impotent in these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has said—I fear the Minister will say the same thing—the most we can do is restrict for three months the benefits of people who come here from other EU countries. To be frank, that is neither here nor there. It is no wonder that people are not satisfied with that response. Of course, they agree with it—it is better than nothing and we agree entirely that we should do it—but it is nowhere near being a sufficiently robust response to the complaints we hear every day of the week, such as, “I know very well that there are people living down the road who have moved here and made no contribution to the system, and yet they are claiming benefits.” I do not think that making them wait for a few weeks before they can claim will be enough to assuage people’s concerns.

I do not want to go down another avenue, but, to be honest, our relationship with the EU goes to the very heart of the problem, and unless we deal with that relationship, we will not be able to solve the problem. When this country joined the EU, it was not, of course, the European Union, but the Common Market. People thought that they were joining a free trade area. It had nothing to do with lots of people coming here and claiming benefits. As my hon. Friend has said, over the years we have seen a general competence creep on the part of the EU. It has gradually taken over more and more competences: more and more things have become its responsibility rather than the responsibility of this Chamber. It is, therefore, no wonder that people feel that it is not worth voting in elections and say, “There’s no point, because you can’t change anything.”

We have yet to hear what the Government’s red lines are in renegotiating our EU terms of membership, but such matters should be brought back within the control of this Parliament. I venture to suggest that if any party put that in its manifesto, it would be extremely well received and very popular, as shown by the evidence that I have given. The popular nature of the measure would be demonstrated if we put it in a manifesto and voted on it in a general election, knowing that it could be brought into law and that its introduction could not be stopped by the European Union.

If the measure is prevented by our membership of the EU and that fact is not changed in any renegotiation, the British people would be absolutely right to vote to leave the EU so that we can get back control over such matters as deciding who we pay benefits to. That is the heart of the matter. The measure is popular and would receive widespread support right across this country. I will not detain the House with the details, but the poll shows that it is supported by all age groups, sections of the public and parts of the country. It is absolutely wrong that this House has no power to bring in the measure because of our membership of the European Union, which is really what this boils down to. There is no other reason why we cannot do it; we are stopped from doing it by being members of the European Union.

I hope that the Minister will say something different—that he entirely agrees that the measure is popular and that it will receive the Government’s full support—but I fear that will not be the case. Nevertheless, the Bill has my full support. It will receive if not universal, then very widespread support from my constituents, and I wish it well.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that some people come to this country purely to claim benefits. Frankly, I disagree with that contention, but will he estimate what percentage of people coming from the European Union do so purely to claim benefits?

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in that we can only estimate or guess, because nobody keeps a check or monitors the situation: there are no figures. We do not know the percentage, because we do not check. That is why I accept that if people are asked why they come to this country, nobody says, “Just to claim your benefits”; they all say, “I’ve come here to look for work, of course.”

[Karl Turner]

Frankly, I think that the figure is probably zero. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, because he can only guess, can he not?

[Mr Nuttall]

We do not know. I suspect that the figure is probably not zero, but some people will do so. Human nature being what it is, some people will want to work the system, just as there are some in this country who want to work the system and bend the rules to get the best deal they can. To be fair to them, the current EU rules permit those people to come here. They will say, “I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not committing any offences. I want to improve my English language skills”—those skills are very useful to have—so they can give lots of reasons for wanting to come to this country. When they are asked, I suspect 0% of them would say, “Well, I’ve come here to claim benefits”, but the reality is that they are doing so. It does not matter what they say; what matters is what is actually happening.

Frankly, if there is no problem, it does not matter if the Bill passes, does it? If nobody is coming here for that purpose, the Bill will not matter. However, when they are asked, the vast majority of people think that there is a problem that this Parliament should be doing something about. It is a travesty that, because we are members of the European Union, we cannot do anything about it. As I say, I hope that the Bill receives a fair wind from the Government and that it finds its way speedily on to the statute book.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I intend to speak only briefly to put on the record my full support for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and his excellent Bill. I am proud to be one of its sponsors.

I had always thought that the concept that benefits in this country should be paid only to UK citizens was not particularly contentious. I thought that everybody across the political divide agreed with that. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) wants to say that he does not support that principle—as a shadow Minister, he must speak with some authority on behalf of the Labour party as a whole—he is at liberty to do so.

If the hon. Gentleman does not think that there should be a restriction on the payment of benefits to people who are not UK citizens, he will presumably campaign for every non-EU citizen who comes into this country to have full access to the benefits system, unless he thinks that people from outside the EU are lesser people than those who are from within the EU. Perhaps he wants to discriminate against people from south Asia when they come into this country. In his interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), he seemed to be suggesting that all the people who come in from the EU are decent coves and should have full access to our benefits system, but that all those who come to this country from outside the EU are foul, swindling people whom we should stop at every turn. That appeared to be the thrust of what he was saying.

I do not subscribe to that view. I think that this country should treat all people who are not UK citizens exactly the same, irrespective of where they are from. It should not matter whether they are from India, Pakistan, South Africa or south America, or from Poland, Bulgaria, France or Germany. As far as I am concerned, we should treat them all the same. To me, they are all non-UK nationals. We should not be picking and choosing which countries have better people than others. The hon. Gentleman might want to go down that line, as he indicated in his interventions, but I do not. I think that we should treat them all the same.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman knows for a fact that that is not what I was suggesting. I was making the point, which I think was a valid one, that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that vast numbers of people are coming here with the sole motivation of claiming benefits is just not true.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is leading with his chin on these matters. He is getting out increasingly bigger spades with which to dig himself into a hole. He has now suggested that nobody from the EU comes here to claim benefits, but that everybody who comes here from outside the EU does so to claim benefits and that we need to restrict access to benefits for them. If he is not saying that, presumably his argument is that we should allow a free-for-all of benefits for anyone from anywhere around the world. That is certainly not an argument that I support, and I do not think that the majority of my constituents would support it.