Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Anne Begg

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

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

I was at a wedding on Sunday. I only attended the evening part, but during the day there was a humanist ceremony, and everyone said it was a wonderful occasion. It was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Does my hon. Friend agree that humanists in Scotland cannot understand why their fellow humanists in England might not enjoy the same rights as they do and feel very disappointed about that?

[Kate Green]

I, too, have attended humanist weddings in Scotland, including that of my niece last October, which was an incredibly special occasion. I can fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the concern and hurt humanists across the UK will feel that these ceremonies that have worked so successfully in Scotland since 2005 have not been replicated here in England.

Universal Credit

Debate between Kate Green and Anne Begg

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg]

I am worried that the Government say bluntly in their response to our report that they are not going to provide a definition of a vulnerable claimant. Without that, it will be difficult for Jobcentre Plus to identify the individuals who need help. This is our biggest area of concern. We do not know whether someone will need to get into trouble before they can get help rather than already having been identified as needing it.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I do not know about my hon. Friend or other right hon. and hon. Members, but I get paid monthly and my main outgoing, my mortgage, is taken on the day that my salary goes into my bank account. I think that I have had that arrangement ever since I first had a mortgage. Most banks and mortgage companies tend to arrange things with their customers in that way. They ask on what day people are paid and then arrange that that is the day on which they take the mortgage payment. Has the Select Committee considered whether there is anything the Government could do to help landlords, particularly social landlords, to collect rent in that way on the day that universal credit is paid?

Universal Credit

Debate between Kate Green and Anne Begg

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. We hope that in response to our report the Government will give more detail—put more flesh on the bones—on exactly how the exceptions service will work and how it will identify vulnerable people. I will have a bit more to say about that later.

Another area of concern is the ambitious implementation timetable. We think that there is a danger that the Government have a degree of blind faith in thinking that all the IT systems will work. We would love to share their feeling that everything is all right, but we have seen in the past how other Government IT systems have not lived up to expectations.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Did the Committee note the concern of the Federation of Small Businesses that only a quarter of small businesses are aware of the need to provide real-time information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? What did the Committee recommend as regards those communications?

[Dame Anne Begg]

We heard a lot of evidence from members of employers’ organisations and from organisations representing accountants, and others, who were concerned about HMRC’s real-time information requirements, on which the system strongly depends. They felt that there was not enough knowledge among employers who will have to operate the process. One of our recommendations was that the Government should be liaising more closely with those organisations and helping with publicity. Another recommendation was that the Government should be wary of trying to keep to the ambitious timetable that has been set.

The Committee has two other areas of concern. First, there are still decisions to be made about how to deal with passported benefits. Secondly, the decision to localise council tax benefit seems to fly completely in the face of the basic principles of universal credit. That might create extra computer problems, because the Department for Work and Pensions’ computer system would have to interface not only with the HMRC’s computer systems but those of local authorities.

Let me look at these matters in a bit more detail. “Digital by default” sounds great in theory, but it might be more difficult to manage in practice because the number of people likely to be applying for universal credit who do not have access to a computer or are not digitally aware or computer literate will be much higher than in the general population. We are keen that the Government should lay out exactly what will happen in the case of claimants who are unable to make any kind of digital claim, because we understand that there will not be a paper form. Indeed, the Government expect that only 50% of claimants will make their claim online in 2013, when universal credit starts to be rolled out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Was the Committee concerned that the protection for existing claimants, which means that they will not lose out unless there is a change in their circumstances, might act as a disincentive to enter into work, because they might worry that the job will not work out and that they will have to go on to universal credit for the first time, which could mean receiving a lower payment than they had previously?

[Dame Anne Begg]

A number of witnesses pointed out to the Committee that there can sometimes be unintended consequences and that people’s behaviour does not always follow a logical pattern. What my hon. Friend has said might be logical in certain cases.

Many decisions must still be made on passported benefits. The Committee acknowledges that it is a difficult issue, but it is essential for the Government to make a decision. A lot of working families depend on passported benefits, and that is one of the elements that will make work pay. I do not have time to consider in detail the localisation of council tax, although I have a feeling that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions might share a few of the Labour party’s views on that, even if they do not say so publicly.

The concerns set out in the report about the impact of universal credit on vulnerable claimants are significant and should give the Government cause to reflect on the speed at which they plan to proceed. This is an important reform for the Government, who have been willing to go where no other Government have feared to tread. Many have described it as a brave, radical step that should provide a more coherent and transparent benefit system for working-age people. It is therefore important that the Government get the implementation right, and ensure from the start that all 8 million households affected by the reform will be able to access the help they might need to make a claim. The success of universal credit will be judged not on how well it works for those able to manage it, but on how well it serves the most vulnerable in society.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Kate Green and Anne Begg

Thursday 10th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is why it is important that the research is carried out. In his evidence to the Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord Freud, said:

“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”

It is not until the proposal is market-tested that we will know whether what we are talking about will be the case.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can already market-test to some degree? In my borough of Trafford, for example, we already know that two-bedroom properties in the private rented sector are heavily oversubscribed. The market is unlikely to reduce rents when it can readily let to people who are not in receipt of local housing allowance.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, and there is the same situation in my constituency, where there is a housing shortage. Even people who work in the oil industry—a fluid population that comes temporarily to work in the offshore sector—have great difficulty in finding housing. There are jobs in certain areas and people flock to them, but those people often cannot take up the employment, because they cannot find accommodation. Those people are in the private rented sector and can afford fairly high rents, and their situation probably has more to do with rent inflation in Aberdeen than with anything that has happened as a result of local housing allowance. The Government have sometimes given the existence of the local housing allowance as a reason for rent inflation in the private rented sector, but in certain areas it has nothing to do with the allowance, simply because there are not enough LHA claimants to have that kind of market effect.

One aspect of the housing benefit reforms that we congratulated the Government on is the fact that disabled people who need a non-familial person to stay overnight will be able to claim housing benefit to cover the extra room required for that carer, which is, in itself, a good measure. It was a recommendation made by the Select Committee in the previous Parliament, and I have to say that the then Labour Government did not agree to implement it. However—there is often an “however” in all this—as a Committee we realised that even if the person looking after a disabled person is a relative who does not need space in the house, there might, for example, be a need for more space for wheelchairs, or an extra room for dialysis machinery. Disabled people need large houses, for which they would not qualify on the basis of their family size, for all sorts of reasons.

I was disappointed by the Government’s response on that issue:

“Housing Benefit is not designed to meet every individual circumstance and it would be complex to introduce different rules for the situations such as those described by the Committee”.

That is poor, because council tax benefit and the tax itself can take account of people who need extra room. If someone can prove that they are in a bigger house than they would otherwise occupy because they need extra room for a wheelchair, the local authority places the house in a lower council tax band. That is quite simple and straightforward, and it is not particularly difficult. I am disappointed that the Government have not recognised that such extra space might be imperative for disabled people. It is doubly imperative that the Government recognise that, because the proposals also introduce an under-occupancy rule, of which disabled people could fall foul simply because they occupy a house that is bigger than the one that they would need on the basis of the number of people in their family.

The Government also completely miss the point of the Committee’s recommendations regarding the possibility that someone with a disability who has had their house adapted has to move because they do not qualify for a house of that size, or because the house is too expensive. Their house, whether in the private rented or social rented sector, will no longer be covered by housing benefit. The Government’s response is, “Well, we’ve got the nine-month transitional protection,” or “There might be something in the discretionary housing payment that can be used.” The Government’s response suggests that disabled people will be able to move just like everyone else. Well, the answer is, “No they will not.” It is incredibly difficult, as it is, to get accommodation; it is almost impossible to get accommodation that is already adapted; and it is very difficult to get accommodation that can easily be adapted. For someone who has already spent a lot of money—out of their own pocket or through facilities grants—not only on making their home accessible, but on adapting the bathroom and kitchen and doing all the other things that need to be done, the Government are saying that it will somehow be okay, because if housing benefit is changed such people will be able to move and replicate those facilities somewhere else, but only in a smaller house or a cheaper area. That is not possible, and a lot of disabled people will be distressed by what I see as complacency by the Government.

I know that the Government say that all that will be covered by the discretionary housing payment. In fact, their response to our report seems to say that the payment will be a panacea. I came across mentions of the payment so often that I counted them, and it appears 20 times in a relatively short document. The discretionary housing payment will be the solution 20 times—it is mentioned three times on page 11 alone. So, £190 million is going to go an awfully long way and do an awful lot, and I am fairly sure that the Minister himself recognises that it is not elastic and will not cover all that the response says that it will.

[Kate Green]

I, too, noted the many references to the discretionary housing payment as the solution to the hardship and risk of homelessness identified in our report. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only about whether that payment can possibly be adequate, which looks unlikely, but about the fact that it is discretionary? That introduces further uncertainty for families and households about the stability of their home.

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is the problem. As well as the discretionary element, council tax benefit will be devolved to local authorities, although only 90% of it, and that as well will be discretionary to the local authority. The discretionary element must cover not only older people but disabled people, young people, large families and multi-generational families, perhaps from ethnic minorities, yet it will be up to the local authority to decide who receives it. I suspect that most local authorities will have a pecking order of groups that they think are worthy of support, leaving the groups that they do not think are worthy of support at the bottom of the heap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

As we are speaking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could read the report, where he will discover that the Select Committee recognised that housing benefit needed to be changed, and that the costs of housing benefit should be under control and affordable. There is no dissent from that. In terms of the Government’s response, the Government agree with the Committee, even within the ambit of the importance of getting the right amount of money to the right person to ensure that those who are on housing benefit are not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle, though I have to say they are not. That is where much of the problem in the debate came: the often overblown claims in some of the tabloid papers. One must remember that local housing allowance was set at broad rental market area level. Although the overall cap is £400, in a lot of areas it was already not possible to get that level of housing benefit or local housing allowance anyway.

[Kate Green]

If the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) has now had the opportunity to consider the Government’s response, I wonder whether he was as struck as I was by the recognition that, after the introduction of local housing allowance, it was found that most low-income working households do pay a rent slightly lower than the local housing allowance rate for the property they occupy. It was only slightly lower—that rent was usually 90% or more of the local housing allowance rate. The differential between those who were in work and those not, in terms of rent paid, was relatively low. The make-up of the two groups often accounted for quite a lot of that difference. Those who were in work and having to pay rent were often young professionals, for whom occupying rented property would be a transitional step through to property ownership.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Very often, partly because of the publicity and the tabloid headlines, the assumption is that people on housing benefit are always out of work, when that is certainly not the case. In fact, in London it is particularly important that if low-paid people are to get work and to have work incentives, housing benefit must be set at the right level. The danger is that the gap between what they can get in housing benefit and what they can afford is too great; they end up not being able to get accommodation in the area in which they are working, which is even more important.

Work and Pensions (CSR)

Debate between Kate Green and Anne Begg

Thursday 4th November 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to have been given the opportunity, as Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, to open the debate, but I should thank the Backbench Business Committee, because this is one of the first Westminster Hall debates whose subjects have been chosen by that Committee. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). They did not quite suggest the subject of this afternoon’s debate, but they put in suggestions relating to this subject, and I think that the Backbench Business Committee decided that the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Work and Pensions would be a worthy subject for debate. I agree, because that Department is to suffer some of the largest cuts of all the Departments, in terms of both the percentage of its budget to be cut and the money to be saved.

The Department is to face a budget cut of £18 billion per annum by 2014-15. That is made up of the £11 billion announced in the Budget and a further £7 billion announced as part of the CSR proposals. However, the Department for Work and Pensions is different from other Departments, as most of its budget is in the form of money paid straight to people who qualify for one benefit or another. It is not managing budgets or delivering services as other Departments are. Much of its money ends up in the hands of real people, who spend it in their communities. The Department’s annually managed expenditure depends on how much money is paid out in benefits, which is where the large cuts are to be made.

It is quite easy, if we say it quickly, to cut benefits. We just do not give people any money. That can be a tempting thing for Governments to do, but of course the people do not go away; they still need the money to live. By my reckoning, there are four ways in which it is possible for the Department to cut the annually managed expenditure. It can reduce the amount that is paid out for certain benefits. It can change the criteria to narrow the number of people who qualify for a particular benefit. It can time-limit how long a person can qualify for a benefit. It can abolish a benefit completely. If we look at the proposals in the Budget and in the CSR, we see that the Government are doing a bit of all four of those things.

It is worth remembering that the cuts are being made against a backdrop of rising unemployment as other cuts in the numbers of people employed in the public sector take effect, and it is during times of high unemployment that the Department for Work and Pensions spending goes up, as more people qualify for benefits—benefits that many feel they have already paid for through national insurance contributions.

More than half the benefit spending of the Department goes to people who are over retirement age. The basic state pension and pension credit, for instance, account for 50% or slightly more of the Department’s budget. Generally, the benefits received by retired people are not being cut, although there will be some cuts in the benefits that they receive, because of the proposed changes in housing benefit and the mobility element of disability living allowance for people in residential care, and possibly the changes in relation to council tax. Perhaps the Minister can explain what those mean in reality, because I have found that quite difficult to grasp.

While I am talking about the council tax proposals, I want to point out that they seem to fly in the face of other things that the Government are doing. I am referring to their plans for a universal credit to make the benefits system much simpler and more straightforward, which I would certainly welcome. To devolve payments in relation to council tax down to local authorities, which will all have their own criteria, seems to go against the principle that I understand the Government are trying to create for the benefits system.

Of course, I never let a chance go by to get in my own gripe with regard to people over 65. Someone who happens to be my age and is a woman may have started her working life assuming that she would receive her basic state pension at 60. Until a few weeks ago, I thought that I would receive my basic state pension at 65. That has now gone up to 66, and I cannot be alone in wondering whether, by the time I approach 66, the age will be 67 or higher and I will never get the chance to retire at all. However, my constituents might make the decision for me sooner than that.

The result of protecting the elderly from the worst of the spending cuts is that the vast bulk of the cuts will fall on those of working age, on families and on people who are disabled or ill. For those groups, the cuts are much harsher and deeper. Where are the Government planning to make those cuts? I said that they could consider four areas, so I shall go through those one by one. First, they could reduce the amount paid out for certain benefits. The clearest example of that is the proposed cap on housing benefit payments. However, all benefits that are currently uprated according to the retail prices index will be cut over time, because they are soon to be linked to the consumer prices index, which is usually below the RPI level. That means that the value of almost all benefits will diminish.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is interesting research in that regard? Conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, it suggests that linking benefits to CPI will reduce by £1 a year the value of the incomes of families on safety-net benefits. For a person on jobseeker’s allowance, for example, that will mean a loss of £10 over 10 years, representing between 15 and 20% of their income.

[Miss Begg]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Certainly I recognise the 15% figure. We are not talking only about benefits for those of working age. I was briefed this morning that if occupational pensions—both private and public pensions—are to be linked to CPI, the figure of 15% is not unrealistic. In fact, people on an average occupational pension could lose the equivalent of three years’ worth of their pension if they were to live for the average time from retirement, which is 24 years.

The switch from RPI to CPI will, in the long term, mean that the amount of money that people on benefits receive is reduced. Let me explain what I find particularly perverse about the housing benefit changes. The difference between RPI and CPI is that CPI does not take account of housing costs. Again, perhaps the Minister can explain the rationale for why the CPI measure is being used for housing benefit when it does not take into account housing inflation, which runs at a higher level than consumer inflation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston suggested, the change in uprating will also affect levels of child benefit, income support, jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit, as well as the employment and support allowance and the carer’s allowance. The value of all the benefits in payment will diminish with the changing of the linking rules or the indexation to which they are subject.

There will also be reductions in what can be claimed in such things as the child care element of the working tax credits, as well as changes to the eligibility rules for the working tax credits. Some of those changes would also appear to fly in the face of the perfectly correct cause being espoused by the Government—to ensure that those who can work do work. However, some of the changes might put barriers in the way of getting people into work.

The second way that the Department can reduce spending on benefits is by changing the criteria, to prevent many people who would have previously qualified for the benefit from qualifying in future. We shall see people who have been on jobseeker’s allowance for a year losing 10% of their housing benefit, or people in residential homes no longer qualifying for the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I am glad that it is the Minister responsible for disabled people who will be winding up for the Government, because of a phrase in the CSR attached to the announcement about the mobility component of the DLA for people in residential homes being cut:

“where such costs are already met from public funds”.

Can the Minister explain what that means?

Does that phrase mean that some people in residential homes will keep the mobility DLA, if their costs of travel and transport, presumably, are not being met from public funds? However, I am not aware of any residential homes that have a travel budget. I am not aware that public funds are available. Some people in residential homes might get a taxi card, for instance, but like, I suspect, many others, my local authority is tightening its criteria: Aberdeen has decided that someone on the upper rate mobility DLA does not get a taxi card. Anything that I can think of that might be the provision of travel from public funds does not, I think, apply to people in residential care.

On the issue of residential care, it is worth remembering that, generally, people in residential care who are on the mobility DLA will be a younger cohort, because people do not qualify for a DLA once they are over 65. Many of them might be in work—their care needs might require them to be in a residential home, but they might have work or go out daily to day centres or whatever. Without the DLA, they would not be able to get out of the confines of the residential home. Sometimes there is a perception that someone who lives in a residential home is elderly and not able to lead a fulfilling life, but nothing could be further from the truth. I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on that point.

Probably the best example of the Government’s changing the criteria to exclude previous claimants is the move from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. This migration was always on the cards—it was introduced by the previous Government—but I get a sense that some of it is being accelerated. The other thing that is different is the numbers involved. The number of those whom the previous Government thought might lose out as a result of the migration appears to be quite different in reality, certainly in regard to the new benefits. At the moment, we do not know the actual figures for the number of people currently receiving IB who will no longer qualify for the new employment and support allowance. The first trials of the migration are taking place in Aberdeen and Burnley, and it will be at least a couple of months before we have any robust figures and find out how many people are not getting through the new gateway.

The Government expect somewhere between 30% and 40% of IB claimants will not qualify and will therefore end up on jobseeker’s allowance. For those individuals, that is a loss of £20 a week. What makes me doubt whether that is the final figure is that we know that the number of new claimants qualifying for employment and support allowance is much less than the previous Government were projecting. While they thought that 20% might end up on the support element of the ESA, the figure is much lower, at around 4 to 6%, and it looks as though around 60% will not be getting ESA at all, because either they have dropped out of the system or they have been awarded jobseeker’s allowance. As many as 60% of those who are currently on incapacity benefit might not qualify for the new ESA, therefore, but, as I said, the trials are going on in Aberdeen and Burnley, and we will have the figures in a couple of months’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Miss Begg]

I give way to the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

[Miss Begg]

I certainly hope so. I was not intending to go into the WCA and its faults, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me. I am looking forward to seeing the report by Professor Harrington. However, there is concern that by the time he reports, whether at the end of this month or the beginning of next month, the trial in Aberdeen and Burnley will be coming to an end, and there will not be a lot of time to change things. There might be time to change the procedure, but not to put in place any major changes in how the work capability assessments are carried out before the full roll-out begins in March or April next year. The volumes will be quite large and it will be interesting to find out, in Aberdeen in particular, whether Atos Healthcare can manage the volumes that will be coming through. It is a big process, but there are still some fundamental flaws in how the work capability assessment is in operation.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston want to intervene?

[Kate Green]

No—the hon. Gentleman for Stroud asked the same question.

[Miss Begg]

That leads me to the third way in which the Government are planning to cut the benefits bill: limiting how long a person can be on a particular benefit. Even if a person is successful in being assessed as only partially fit for work, and qualifies for the work-related activity part of the employment support allowance or ESA—it gets no easier to say, but I do not know another way of doing it but to use acronyms or to give the full title—the CSR proposes that they will qualify for the contributory element for only a year. That means that people who have worked all their lives, and paid their national insurance contributions in the hope that they will act as an insurance against ill health, will get the benefit for only one year unless their household income is below the qualifying level for income support.

That poses the question of how much the Government want to continue with the contributory principle. Already, people receive unemployment benefit, or jobseeker’s allowance, for only six months, and the contributory element of ESA is to last only for a year, yet they will have worked all their lives thinking that was why they were paying national insurance.

Lone parents will qualify for income support only if they have a child under the age of five. After that, they will be moved to JSA. If they do not get a job within a year, they will lose 10% of their housing benefit. I have been told by several Ministers that the Work programme will result in people being helped back into work. However, the lone parent whose youngest child has turned five will not go into the Work programme for a year. That is when lone parents are to lose part of their housing benefit.

Here we have an individual who has done everything that the Government have asked of her, or him. Such people will have turned up to all the work-related activities and may have moved house to find somewhere cheaper so that they are at the 30th percentile in the housing benefit changes. They will have done everything that the Government have asked of them, but in these economic times they simply cannot find a job. It is not that they have not tried. They will have been to lots of interviews, but not managed to find a job. Even then, they will still lose their benefits.

That is a fundamental change to our welfare system. Sanctions and taking benefits from people has always been linked to negative behaviour—the individual not doing what the Government ask of them. The worrying message that the Government may be sending out is that even if people do the right thing they could still be in danger of losing part of their benefit.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that there is confusion, with people doing the right thing but still facing sanctions. Does she agree that it is illogical to sanction one benefit in respect of behaviours that are desired in connection with participation in the labour market but that are covered by other benefits—in this case, the jobseeker’s allowance—and with no suggestion that the individual will necessarily be facing a sanction?

[Miss Begg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the issue seems to arise particularly with sanctions on housing benefit. When giving evidence to the Select Committee yesterday, Lord Freud suggested that sanctions on housing benefit would follow people wherever they went. The only way for them to get rid of the sanction would be to find a job, but some might simply not be able to do so. It could depend on where people live, as in some areas it is difficult to find a job.