Welfare Reform and Work Act

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Mike Gapes

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Gray, the Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way. He does not have to give way, so I would be grateful if you would allow him to carry on.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have lots to get through. I want the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to reply, and the Scottish National party has had a lot to say today.

The hon. Lady majored fairly heavily on disability benefits in her speech. We are committed to ensuring that more of the money goes to the people who need it most. We have continued to increase benefits for people with disabilities and health conditions, and we will spend £800 million extra in 2018-19 to do that once again. For people in the employment and support allowance support group, that means £720 more per year than in 2010. For recipients of the monthly rate of disability living allowance, paid to the most disabled children, it is more than £1,200 a year more.

At the same time, we are determined to break down the barriers to employment faced by disabled people. The hon. Lady spoke about the removal of the work-related activity component under ESA. The old system, as we all remember, was failing to help disabled people and those with health conditions into work. Only one in 100 ESA work-related activity group claimants leave the benefit each month. We believe that disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than that.

We believe that the changes, working in tandem with a £330 million support package over the next four years, will provide the right incentives and support to help new claimants with limited capability for work. Taken as a whole, our policies to help people with disabilities to find employment have been making good progress. More than half a million more disabled people are now in work than four years ago, and on a before-housing-costs basis the absolute poverty rate among people living in a family where somebody is disabled is now down to a record low.

On the underpayment of ESA, the hon. Lady asked about paying back further than 2014. We are actually legally restricted from recalculating payments back beyond 2014. Statute governs that position, which we are not allowed to exceed. The hon. Lady also raised the success rate of personal independence payment claimants who go through the appeals process. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of PIP decisions do not go to appeal. Some 2.9 million PIP claims were decided on between April 2013 and September 2017, of which only 8% of initial PIP decisions were appealed against, and only 4% were overturned at appeal. A decision being overturned does not necessarily mean that the original decision was incorrect; often it is because the claimant has provided more cogent oral evidence or other new evidence that has allowed a more accurate assessment.

In a forensic speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) dissected the case against welfare reform very ably. In particular, he pointed towards the benefits cap, which a number of Members have criticised. Of course, the numbers show that the benefits cap has been extraordinarily successful as an incentive to get into work. Over the last couple of years, tens of thousands of people have come out from under the benefits cap, because of course it does not apply once someone moves into work. The amount at which they are capped has dropped significantly too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch asked about older claimants and when an impact assessment was likely to be approved. I am informed that we will publish the evaluation of the two Jobcentre Plus interventions for older claimants in the spring of 2018—I assume before the summer recess. Those will look at the impacts of sector-based work, academy and work experience interventions.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) raised the issue of reassessments for those who are terminally ill. He will know that in both PIP and ESA we have a fast-track process for any claimants who have fewer than six months to live. In ESA we introduced a severe conditions criteria last autumn, which means that people with the most severe degenerative conditions will not need to be reassessed. It is more complex in the case of disease, but if those individuals qualify for the highest level of ESA under the support group, and there is no possibility of improvement, they do not need to return for reassessment. I am more than happy to keep that under review and have another look at it in future.

Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised the rape clause, which is an issue on which she has campaigned. Obviously, it is a very difficult and sensitive issue, which we are more than happy to keep under review. As she knows, a third-party model has been put in place, but if particular issues are being experienced by women accessing that model, I am more than happy to look at it again. As she also knows, there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. My undertaking to her this morning is that I am happy to meet her, if she wishes to discuss it with me, to try to find a way through this issue.

It has been an interesting debate, although it has put the House into two polar opposite groups: those who thought that welfare reform was required, and those who did not. One of the things that I have found most disheartening about such debates since I was appointed to my job is the implicit defence by those who are opposed to welfare reform of an old benefits system that was frankly fraudulent. It was trapping people in poverty, and insisting that it was trying to help them when, in fact, it was holding them back.

We believe in treating everybody with dignity, and giving them the power to take control of their lives and find their own way forward, for them and their families, in work. We believe in giving them all the tools that we can to do that, whether they are disabled, single parents, families, or older people who wish to access work. The way to a dignified future for everybody is to give them control, not to make them vassals of a welfare state.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Dr Whitford, you have five seconds to wind up.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Mike Gapes

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Thank you, Mr Howarth. I referred to my nine amendments, two of which are minor and drafting amendments. Amendment 23 states that we should, “by 31 March 2017”, notify the country’s intention to leave the EU. I was surprised at the lack of a date in the Bill, given the Prime Minister’s commitment to triggering article 50 by 31 March. I would have thought all Government Members would be prepared to support the amendment, given that it is entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said. For some reason, however, it does not seem to be acceptable to them; I do not know why. Perhaps a Minister could explain that later.

I mentioned amendment 31, on Euratom. Amendment 30 refers to the European Defence Agency. Defence co-operation within the European Union is vital. There is a large number of major defence projects with a components arrangement, whereby parts from one country are assembled in another. For many years, there have been such collaborative arrangements. Frankly, the British defence industry is unable to compete without international involvement. Some companies have moved offshore, in the sense that they have moved across the Atlantic, while others in this country are joint collaborative arrangements. Thales, originally a French company, is now very much a British defence manufacturer. For many reasons, if our defence industry is to be competitive and provide jobs for tens of thousands of highly skilled people in this country, we have to keep that defence industrial base, but that will be possible only through joint collaboration; otherwise, European manufacturers will be swept aside by the United States or other parts of the world. We have seen that already in the way that industries have shifted to Asia.

Anybody who wants to see the whole manufacturing process of a motor vehicle has to go to South Korea, where they press the steel, have the paint shops and engine plants, and fit out the vehicles. When I was a young man in the 1960s, I went on a school visit to Ford Dagenham. I was struck by the noise and the smell of paint. I was 17 years old. I had never been in a place like it. At that point, I realised that making cars was a massive, complex process. The only time I have seen a place like it subsequently was when I went to Hyundai motors in Korea, where I saw the sheets of steel to be pressed. When I more recently visited the Ford Dagenham plant, which is not far from my constituency, all I saw were men in white coats walking around, adjusting things in a complex process, with lots of robots and diesel engines. That is the contrast. We need to think about this. When we leave the EU, we have to make sure that our manufacturing industry, and within that, the defence sector, is maintained and strengthened.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I will give way briefly. I will not take too many interventions, though, because I am conscious that other people wish to speak.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but will he accept that our membership of the EU has seen a transfer of industries and factories from the UK to eastern Europe and others parts of the EU? Not least of those is Cadbury, which transferred manufacturing to other parts of the EU.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman will find that globalisation and the expansion of the wealth of the world, led by regional trading blocs such as the EU, have led to a significant change in the types of industries located in particular countries. Hundreds of millions of people have been taken out of poverty because of industrialisation in China. The same thing is happening in Vietnam, the Philippines and India. Globalisation is affecting everyone. He refers to eastern Europe. Yes, the days when the polluting Trabi cars were being made in the German Democratic Republic, and when Škoda vehicles were regarded as a joke, have gone.

There is now high-quality manufacturing in many countries throughout Europe, but they often have integrated supply chains, which is why Ford Dagenham makes diesel engines for cars also manufactured in Belgium, Spain and other European countries. That is the nature of modern capitalism and the global world. The danger in our leaving the EU is that we could make those industries in this country less successful and put tens of thousands of jobs at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I do not wish to give advice to the other place, because it is possible to get into trouble if we do that. I simply say that it is fortunate for democracy and accountability that there is an opportunity for the other place to give more consideration and time to these matters, without being subjected to programme motions in the same way as we are.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to these amendments. I shall support new clause 2 and a number of other amendments, but particularly my amendment 29.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), and more particularly to hear the intervention from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). That is the spirit; that is what we want to see; that is what we want for the future.

May I first offer an apology, Mr Howarth, to the previous incumbent of the Chair for having the temerity to challenge the opening of the debate. The infallibility of the Chair has been on display in this House over the last three or four days, and I was mistaken to think that I should join the chorus of doubts about the Chair’s decisions.

I have listened very carefully to the debate over the last two and a half days, both within the Chamber and while sitting in my office watching the television. Sadly, what I have heard is, broadly speaking, a three-day ululation by those who voted to remain about what is to come. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that, as far as I can see, we are trying to make the law in this Chamber, rather than debating the merits or otherwise of the decision that was made by the people on 23 June. That has resulted in some very poor drafting of amendments and new clauses, a huge number of which have been tabled to this very simple Bill.

I want to expand on my earlier point of order, and to explain why I cannot support the vast majority of the new clauses and amendments. Let me deal first with those tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and various other Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). They constitute a large shopping list of things that Members would like the Prime Minister to take into account, but there are a number of omissions. Other Members have included some of the missing provisions, but they have also missed one or two. For instance, they seem to have forgotten to compel the Prime Minister to breathe or keep her eyes open.

When we add up the list of things that Members are demanding that the Prime Minister take into account during her negotiations and discussions with our European friends, we see that her scope would become extremely limited if we were to pass any of these new clauses. My main objection to them relates to their vagueness. New clause 2, for instance, contains plenty of material that gave me reason for thought. It states that

“the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking”.

To whom should she give that undertaking? Should she give it to her husband, or to the House? It is very imprecise. It also does not specify the form of the undertaking. Should it be written on the back of an envelope? We are writing legislation in this House, and it is incumbent on us to be precise. I raised the point of order about the new clauses being vague and therefore out of order because that is exactly what they are.