Pensions Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We have discussed these matters in the House before, and I sense that there is general consensus that now is the time and this is the right area to address. As this is a coalition, I want to pay particular tribute on the key area, the single tier, to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I do not know why I looked to my left. I should be looking to my right—things are definitely moving now—which is where the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), is sitting. His persistence and work and application have been remarkable, and they have delivered a real reform. Huge credit is due to him, and to the coalition, because we have been able to work together and produce this measure as a coalition. I am enormously pleased that it enjoys some consensus in general terms across the House.

The Bill is about putting in place a welfare and pension system that both reflects the reality of our society now and puts us on a fair and, I hope, sustainable basis for the future. That principle underpins vital changes proposed in the Bill: long overdue reforms to modernise bereavement benefits; bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 67; and putting in place a mechanism for a regular review of the state pension age, recognising the fact of our ageing population.

Between now and 2035 the number of people in the UK over state pension age is currently set to increase from 12.4 million to 15.6 million, a rise of 26%. With ever more pensioners, sustainable pension provision is ever more pressing, and will always be a priority for this Government—and, I would hope, for all Governments. To that end, the Bill provides for the most important reform for a generation: the introduction of the single-tier pension. This new pension system reflects the fact that working patterns and family life have changed over years, that people need to take personal responsibility for planning and saving for their retirement, and that people are living longer and drawing their state pension for longer than their ancestors would ever have done or, ironically, ever expected to do.

The Bill is a significant change for the future, but it builds on the foundations that we have already laid to ensure that pensioners get a decent income in retirement. We announced the triple lock at the beginning of this coalition—not just linking the state pension to earnings but giving a guarantee, in difficult times, that pensioner income would be predictable and would rise at a faster rate than it had risen before. The average person reaching state pension age in 2013 can expect to receive some £12,000 more in basic state pension over their retirement than under previous policies of uprating by prices. The basic state pension is now a higher share of average earnings than in any year since 1992.

Through our commitment to universal pensioner benefits in this Parliament, we have maintained support for older people. There were 12.6 million winter fuel payments to more than 9 million households in 2011-12. We have continued free eye tests, free prescriptions, free concessionary bus travel and free television licences for the over-75s, and that is worth hundreds of pounds to individuals each year. Yet, we are still left with an incredibly complex and confusing system—it is confusing for most people who would have to look at it.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so early in his speech, which we are following with great interest. Will he clarify—he may not want to at this stage—whether he plans to table any amendments to schedule 12(14), which says that the flat-rate pension will be uprated by earnings?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, that is not our plan, but our commitment is public and stated, and goes throughout the whole of this Parliament. This Bill brings that in, so any further changes would have be made later. I simply say that our commitment to the introduction of this Bill remains exactly as it stands.

The two tiers—the basic state pension and the additional state pension—together with other outdated add-ons, make for this complication, as does the mess and mass of means-testing known as the pension credit. With 11 million people now not saving enough for their retirement, we can and must do more to simplify the state pension system. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is in his place, has gone on about this matter for long enough and there has been consensus across the Floor of the House. Getting more people to save, and to save more when they save, is critical.

The first step, which the previous Government had initiated, was auto-enrolment. We picked that up and are now successfully rolling it out to help up to 9 million people into a workplace pension scheme and to make savings the norm. That big change has, again, been smoothed through and taken through at rate, but we have taken care and consideration, because at this difficult time some companies would encounter difficulties. We have been careful to ensure that the roll-out allows time for people to plan. Significantly, more than 400 of the country’s largest employers have now met their auto-enrolment duties, and more than half a million eligible jobholders were newly enrolled by the end of April 2013. Once this is in a steady state we expect up to £11 billion more in pensions saving every year. That is a very big and significant reform. People from many other countries around the world have been to talk to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and have seen me about doing it themselves. We are not breaking absolutely new ground, but for us and for many others it is a real departure: getting people to save and save from the moment they move into work.

Measures in the Bill will ensure that automatic enrolment works as intended. We need to address some technical issues, clarify the existing powers and provide for the automatic transfer of small pension pots. The last of those is vital, because a quarter of people already lose track of at least one pension, and it is estimated that some 50 million dormant pots will exist by 2050 if we do nothing about this issue. It is confusing, and I say with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that although plenty of people understand pensions, dine out on them, sleep on them and can work them very cleverly—the word “anorak” does not come into my lexicon at all—most people find this a complex and difficult area. People can be left with small pots as they move, and that is now the way of work; people move in and out of different companies, leaving behind these pots. It is vital to deal with that, and my hon. Friend has made a huge move to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

This is obviously Second Reading, but we will have further discussions on that subject. We know that it needs addressing and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is already aware of that. Although we will not cover it on Second Reading, we will, I suspect, tackle it during the passage of the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) wants to be on the Committee, now is the time to volunteer. Volunteering in this place is always dangerous, but, none the less, I urge him to do that.

Even with auto-enrolment, it is critical that people understand what they get from the state and are able to save with some confidence. I recognise that that is the biggest area, and it is what the single-tier pension is all about. Auto-enrolment on its own without single tier would be difficult, but single tier underpins auto-enrolment, making it all the more important. The single tier will be all about setting a basic level of pension above the means test.

Let me give an illustrative example: 2012-13 prices would mean a single tier of £144 a week, a basic state pension of £107 and pension credit of £142. Under single tier, every individual would therefore qualify for a pension in their own right. The full rate payable for 35 years of national insurance contribution—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has made the point about contributing to one’s future wealth—reflects that we are combining both the basic pension, based on contributions for more than 30 years, and the state second pension, based on 49 or 50 years of contributions. We are merging the two together. Yet even as we abolish the whole complicated system of the additional state pension on the one hand and contracting out on the other, we will still recognise people’s existing contributions. This is an important matter which has been raised with us a number of times. For example, someone who reaches state pension age in 2016 under single tier who is due £160 under the current system in whatever form will still get that pension of £160, so it is locked in.

Workers who were contracted out at implementation will start to pay full national insurance contributions, as 70% of those who are in work already do. In return, we believe they can build towards a pension at full single rate. Rather than today’s much lower basic state pension, they will get a reward for that effort to save, as I said earlier, referencing the already existing auto-enrolment. As a result, the vast majority, some 90% in the first two decades, will receive enough extra over their retirement through a single-tier pension to more than offset the higher contributions. Let us take a 40-year-old in 2016 contributing an extra £6,000 of national insurance before reaching state pension age in 2043. Over their retirement they would receive £24,000 more in state pension—a net gain of £18,000. That is the point that I was trying to illustrate earlier.

We must honour the past and deal with its complexity. That is the key. Going forward, whether previously contracted out or not, people will become entitled to the single-tier pension in the same way. This is an important feature.

[Mr Byrne]

I wanted to catch the right hon. Gentleman’s eye before he left that point. With reference to honouring the past, can he confirm to the House that going forward under the transitional arrangements, those rights that have been built up in STP will be uprated by the consumer prices index?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I can confirm that to the right hon. Gentleman. Unless there is some reason why he disagrees with that and wants to come back at me, I will make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I shall attempt to do justice to his succinct speech. As he will know, yesterday was a very difficult day in Birmingham, and I know that the whole House will join me in sending thanks and good wishes to PC Adam Koch, who was so badly hurt on Saturday night. His extraordinary courage, together with that of local residents, helped keep worshippers safe at one of our local mosques. He is doing well in hospital. I know that the whole House will want to wish him a speedy recovery.

I am grateful for the note of consensus that the Secretary of State sought to strike in his remarks. As is appropriate for a Second Reading debate, this afternoon I would like to set out the principles on which we agree with the Government and then get stuck into a few of the details of some important matters that we think are still to be settled. We genuinely hope that the Government will listen during this debate and in Committee, not least because many of the issues I wish to raise touch greatly on the need for a comfortable and well-earned retirement for millions of people in this country.

I think that it is fitting to start my remarks with a quick word about history and the road to this afternoon’s debate. One of the chief reasons why the Labour party will not stand in the Bill’s way today is that we recognise the genuine effort to build on the strong foundations that we left. Indeed, our only disappointment today is that we think the Secretary of State is proposing to build only a halfway house on those strong foundations. We think that the Bill is merely half a reform. Therefore, the Opposition’s job during the course of the Bill’s passage will be to ask him not simply to fix some of the deficiencies we can see, but to be bolder and more radical and to seize the moment that we think is there for the taking. I want to set out a number of areas where I think he can do more to seize that moment.

I am glad that we bequeathed the coalition Government a strong foundation—an inheritance very different from what we found in 1997. The link to earnings had been snapped back in 1980, there were pension holidays for employers and the state pension had fallen from 20% of earnings down to just 14%. The pensions Minister himself said:

“Pensioners, rightly, do not trust the Conservatives on pensions.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 34.]

I am glad that he is working so closely in the coalition Government with the Secretary of State on their difficult task.

I have described the legacy that we tried to sort out. We genuinely wanted to leave the Government a different state of affairs. There is no better summary of our work than the research published by Her Majesty’s Government confirming that pensioner poverty had fallen to the lowest level for 30 years.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about building on the strong foundations left by the previous Government. If my memory serves me correctly, the last increase in the basic state pension was 75p. The coalition Government’s new increase in the state pension was worth £234, building on a new foundation of a triple lock, which will increase pensions by a significant amount. Will he comment on the difference between my interpretation of a strong foundation and his?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as I am with the research published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that, under Labour, £11 billion more was spent than if we had pursued the policies that we inherited in 1997. We lifted gross income for pensioners by more than 40%; 2.4 million pensioners had been lifted out of absolute poverty and nearly 2 million out of relative poverty by 2010-11. It was the IFS that confirmed that both the absolute and relative measures of income poverty fell markedly among pensioners. We inherited a tragic and grotesque state of pensioner poverty in 1997 and we set about dealing with it with focus and alacrity. We are proud of the inheritance and legacy that we left the Government.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that over the 13 years of the previous Administration, nothing whatever was done to improve the situation of the self-employed who depend on the state pension system?

[Mr Byrne]

We are very proud of the reforms that we set in place. They tackled the grotesque pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997. That is not simply my conclusion; when the pensions Minister spoke in the House back in 2000, he pretty much confirmed the same line of argument and the same thesis. The job we did on pensioner poverty was important and we made great progress. The foundations that we left are those that the Secretary of State has built on.

The purpose of the Bill is, in essence, to address one of the matters flagged by Lord Turner in his report and one for which we legislated in 2007. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the noble Lord recommended a new pension supplement for the 21st century—one that is universal and, crucially, one that reduces means-testing, an important part of the Secretary of State’s argument. As the Secretary of State also rehearsed, the noble Lord recommended a system that provides clear incentives to save.

The commission proposed an approach different from that proposed by the coalition. It was in the interests of preserving the consensus that Lord Turner had so assiduously constructed that we chose to follow his approach rather than the one set out by the coalition today. Indeed, at the time Lord Turner flagged a number of risks in the strategy that the Government are now pursuing. The Government have taken an approach different from Lord Turner’s. That comes at the price of some big notional losses for state second pension members. The goalposts on the state pension age have now been moved three times in three years. However, there has been some improvement in means testing and potentially something about incentives to save. I want to touch on those.

Let us take means testing first, however, as it was an important part of the Secretary of State’s argument. Today, about 80% of people are free of the pension credit means test; that pension credit is now available for 20% of people. By 2020, that would have fallen to about 16% anyway. Under flat-rate pensions, there will be a further fall of about 8%. If we put savings credit to one side, the improvement is just 2%, and of course about 35% of pensioners will still be eligible to access council tax benefit, which is about 238,000 people, and 12% will be able to access housing benefit—84,000 people. We are still an awfully long way from the end of means testing, but none the less a small step forward has been taken and we welcome it.

The Secretary of State was anxious to stress the point about savings. The judgment of the IFS was that the effect of proposals on the incentive to save were complex and varied. As the Bill reduces the long-run generosity of the pension system—that is one reason why we support it—it should increase the incentive to save. However, although some will see lower effective marginal tax rates when pension credit and savings credit are withdrawn, some will see higher marginal tax rates. The IFS says, therefore, that the direction on the effect of savings is ambiguous.

Under the proposals, some pensioners who have saved absolutely nothing will be better off in real terms each week than those who have saved substantial sums. A pensioner who has saved nothing will enjoy the flat-rate pension of £144 a week and will be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, which is another £94 a week. That is a total of £238 a week, which is considerably more than what someone who has saved £24,000 will receive. They might enjoy a notional income from savings of about 30 quid a week, plus the flat-rate pension, which is a total of £174 a week. That is much less—36% less—than what the pensioner who has saved nothing will get. In fact, the pensioner who saves nothing will be better off than someone who has put £50,000 away in the bank. So there are still problems and disincentives to save, but none the less, we think that, on balance, the Bill represents progress, which is why we support it in principle.

[Richard Graham]

Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman right when he said that the Bill’s move to axe the means-tested pension credit was a small step forward? This is a huge and significant step forward that recognises that the means-tested pension credit was deeply flawed and was not implemented for many of the people who were eligible for it. A single-tier pension will set our pensions on the right track. Will he confirm that the Labour party now accepts that this is the right way forward and that it is a huge step?

[Mr Byrne]

I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to provide his own definition of the word “huge.” He will have read chapter 4 of “The single-tier pension: a simple foundation for saving”, published by the Department for Work and Pensions, which clearly says that under the current system, the number of people reaching state pension age after 2016 who will be eligible for means-tested benefits for pensioners will fall to 16%, and that the figure will fall to 11% by 2060. Under the single tier, eligibility for means-tested benefits will fall by 7.5%. The hon. Gentleman will also have read, as I have, Age UK’s evidence, which states, strikingly, that the great bulk of that change results from the elimination of savings credit, rather than from any increase in generosity. If we put savings credit to one side, we will see that the change in the percentage of pensioners eligible for means-tested benefit is just 1% or 2%. If he chooses to define that as huge, that is his right.

I want to flag concerns in three further areas and I hope this will provide us with material for debate and amendments—some probing and some to be voted on —in Committee.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I had not meant to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman has spent the first part of his speech extolling the virtues of what Labour did, and there has been a little bit of to and fro about that. Does he relate to what Ros Altmann said about the ending of the dividend tax credit and does Labour now accept that it made a major error? Ros Altmann was an adviser to the previous Prime Minister, Mr Blair, and she said that Labour “destroyed our pensions system”. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret that attack on the defined benefit system?

[Mr Byrne]

We were ambitious and wanted to focus our resources on tackling pensioner poverty. I am reluctant to take too many lessons from the Secretary of State. The 1986 cap introduced by Lord Lawson led to a huge drop in contributions to occupational schemes. In fact, the pensions Minister himself said:

“Pensioners have long memories. They remember the Conservatives’ record on pensions…That record is one of not believing in the state pension, of eroding the basic state pension…of attacking SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—and of slashing entitlements.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 34.]

I am afraid, therefore, that I am reluctant to take lessons from the Secretary of State on the inheritance that he has been bequeathed. As I have said, the foundation was strong and that is why we are urging him to be a touch more radical. I think that, in his heart, the Secretary of State will share many of my concerns. I know that he has been trapped in difficult negotiations with the Chancellor and I have no doubt that he would otherwise have gone further than he has in the Bill.

My first question is about universalism. Every generation has to strike the right balance between universalism and targeted benefits. That was true of the post-war Government and it is true of this Government. The Opposition believe that there needs to be a different balance between universal and targeted benefits for older people in the future. We find ourselves in agreement on that not just with the pensions Minister in this morning’s Financial Times, but with the Deputy Prime Minister and possibly even the Secretary of State, although he will keep his own counsel.

Our biggest problem with the Bill is that if the flat-rate pension is so virtuous, its virtue should be enjoyed as widely as possible. It should be a universal pension, but it is not. In particular, we are very concerned about the 700,000 women who will reach the age of 65 in 2016 when the flat-rate pension starts but who, because they will have hit the state pension age of 63, will not enjoy the flat-rate pension, even though a man who was born on the same day will. There are many of those women in our constituencies. I know that this matter will be of concern to the Minister and the Secretary of State.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way in a moment. I will just flag another issue that the pensions Minister might say a word about when he intervenes.

There is an uplift to 35 years-worth of contributions being required before 100% entitlement to the flat-rate pension is enjoyed. That was not the original plan that was presented to the House in the Green Paper. When the Minister gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, he said that the change would save roughly £1 billion. Five years’ more contributions will now be needed before the full pension is enjoyed, so up to 100,000 fewer people will receive the full pension than if the current system had continued. For every year under 35 years, people will enjoy £4.11 less a week. Of course, someone with below about seven or 10 years of contributions will get nothing at all.

We recognise that the minimum income guarantee will remain in place, but we are concerned that the many people who fall short of 35 years and the women to whom I referred will be rather too close to the poverty line for the liking of everyone here.

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of women born between April ’51 and April ’53. Will he clarify whether the Opposition have a specific proposal? It has been suggested that his view and that of his colleagues is that such women should be allowed to opt into the single tier. Is he aware that the cumulative cost of that over 30 years would be about £4.5 billion? Is that an example of his laser-like focus on public spending control?

[Mr Byrne]

I suspected that the pensions Minister would want to play politics with this issue. However, I hope that we can engage on it constructively in Committee.

The DWP has published estimates that show that the cost of including those women will be about £220 million a year. I say gently to the Secretary of State that the change that he is taking through the House today will net the Chancellor £5.5 billion in extra national insurance contributions in 2016-17 and £5.4 billion in 2017-18. The Chancellor has obviously spent some of that money for the Secretary of State by funding the proposals for social care, which are scored at £1 billion in 2016-17, and by funding employment allowance, which is scored at £1.6 billion. There is therefore £2.9 billion left. The cost of remedying the position of these women would be about 7.5% of the remaining NICs windfall that the Secretary of State has kindly brought the Treasury and just 4% of the overall NICs windfall. We are looking forward to working with the pensions Minister in Committee to fix this injustice, which I suspect he also feels in his heart.

[Pamela Nash]

The pensions Minister gave the figure of £4.5 billion to put this group of women born between April ‘51 and ‘53 on equal terms with men. We have been hearing during the debate that this is about winners and losers, but does that not show that women born between ‘51 and ‘53 are losing out to the tune of £4.5 billion?

[Mr Byrne]

It is hard to refute my hon. Friend’s argument. I suppose we must look at the position of those women together with the consequences of the reforms that the Secretary of State has authored to auto-enrolment—I know he will do that. One of the first decisions he took in the Pensions Act 2011 was to link the threshold for participation in auto-enrolment to the personal allowance. As the personal allowance has gone up, more and more low-paid people have fallen out of the auto-enrolment system. In 2011-12, 600,000 people fell out of auto-enrolment, and another 100,000 in 2012-12. In 2013-14, 420,000 people will fall out of the auto-enrolment system—1.1 million people have been carved out of that system.

This is an incredibly important part of the pensions saving architecture for the future, and I am extremely concerned that a number of low-paid people—more than 1 million, most of them women—have been shut out of the auto-enrolment system. To that mix we now say to 720,000 women who had the misfortune to be born between April 1951 and 1952, that they will not get the new system either.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the work of the Work and Pensions Committee and its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill? We found in our evidence sessions that the situation was a great deal more complex for that group of women. They are by no means a homogenous group and some of the comparisons with men born on the same day are quite misleading. That came through in the evidence sessions, and I caution the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Committee’s report on the draft Bill.

[Mr Byrne]

I very much hope that the hon. Lady will be on the Bill Committee to ensure that such arguments are fully rehearsed. I am worried that an injustice is being perpetrated on these women, which is why it is incumbent on us all to search every possible option to help ensure that they can be included and not excluded, particularly in the context of changes to auto-enrolment that have moved 1.1 million people out of that future.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I declare an interest in that my partner was born in exactly this period. In this spirit of equality, is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that these women should have their retirement age equalised with that of men?

[Mr Byrne]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, many of these women have already been hit by the acceleration of the state pension age at very short notice, so no—we want to search during Committee stage for ways to include these women. I know there will be many women in such a position in his constituency, and I am sure he will want engage in that debate.

[Steve Webb]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

No—[Interruption.] I will certainly give way to the Minister in a moment, but I want to underline one final aspect of universalism and the increases in the state pension age to which the Secretary of State referred. The Opposition will not stand in the way of proposals in the Bill to move forward the state pension age, but we want to put it on the record that we are concerned about the proposal to review it every five years. The goalposts on state pension age have already been moved a number of times in this Parliament, which is not good for stability, certainty or long-term planning.

I represent one of the poorest communities in the country and there is a 16-year gap in life expectancy between my constituency and Lichfield, a little way up the road. The mortality figures published by the Library over the past few days show that 1.2 million citizens die between the age of 65 and 69, and 60% of those are in the bottom three income groups. Mortality rates for the poorest in our country are twice the level of the richest, and we must take great care, not just with projections about life expectancy, but also about healthy life expectancy. The Secretary of State is asking for the power—unfettered —to review the state pension age every five years, which we think will promote uncertainty and instability, and damage the pensions savings rate that he seeks to increase.

[Steve Webb]

I believe the shadow Secretary of State has inadvertently misspoken. Will he confirm that no women born between 1951 and 1953 have had their state pension age changed by this Government, that any changes to their state pension age were made under the Pensions Act 1995, and that they have not had their pension age changed at short notice?

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister is right. I was referring to the problem that the state pension age has been moved a number of times in the past three years. The Opposition believe that it is unwise of the Secretary of State to ask for the right to review the pension age every five years because it will promote instability.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will move on, but I will give way in a moment.

A flat-rate pension is a good idea and its virtue should be widely enjoyed. It should be a universal system. During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition will look at how we can maximise its inclusivity and universal scope.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being generous, as ever. I want to confirm that we are not seeking to make the state pension age unstable—quite the contrary. We have talked about setting down a period in which people should expect to be in retirement. The Opposition also know that, after every review, we will require legislation to make changes. There are therefore plenty of locks. If we did not address the matter it would rationally put us out of step with everybody else. Ireland, Australia, Spain, USA and Germany are doing similar things. All Governments need to take such steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

The Secretary of State and I have no difference of opinion on the need regularly to review the state pension age. My point is that we have introduced a number of changes in the past three years and an environment of instability and risk has been created. The Opposition worry that reviewing it every five years will foster more uncertainty and risk. The Government and Opposition share the objective of increasing the level of savings. However, I am anxious to ensure that there are safeguards against, or fetters on, not only this Secretary of State, but future Secretaries of State, to constrain how they make decisions on accelerating or advancing the state pension age if they decide to do so in years to come.

The second Opposition challenge to the Bill during its passage will be a pressure test of the financial assumptions that underpin it. As I said a few moments ago, those who were contracted out are now contracted in, which is great news for the Chancellor—in fact, it is £5.4 billion-worth of good news. In theory, that will mean that the system will become more affordable over the long term, and that, over the very long term, the fraction of gross domestic product and national wealth that we spend on the pension system will come down.

The Opposition believe that that is wise, but we are worried about a number of short-term risks. First, how on earth will the national health service, local government, teachers and the police find £4 billion-worth of national insurance contributions from 2016 onwards? When the Chancellor presented his Budget, he was clear that there would not be an awful lot of help for those in public services, but two thirds of the money in the NICs bill comes from the NHS, teachers, the police and local government. The Secretary of State has not said much today, and we have not heard much from the Chancellor, on where on earth our hard-pressed public services, particularly the NHS, will find £4 billion from 2016 onwards.

During the Bill’s passage, the Opposition would like the Secretary of State to confirm the deal that is being offered in the Bill to the self-employed. Currently, the self-employed pay lower NICs than anybody else— 9% of profits in national insurance, whereas an employee’s contribution is 12% of earnings, and an employer’s contribution is 13.8% of earnings. However, under clause 2(4), the self-employed get 100% of the new pension. They therefore pay less, but get the same, which sounds too good to be true. Experience tells us that, when something sounds too good to be true, it often is. The self-employed deserve long-term certainty. Although there is nothing on the precise NICs number in the Bill, we hope the Secretary of State and the Chancellor will say more about the long-term plan for funding that measure in the spending review. I note in passing that the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:

“The current way of treating the self-employed…is a huge open invitation to tax avoidance, because it is so much lower than you pay as an employee.”

The Institute of Directors is not a hotbed of radical left-wingers and many of its members are self-employed, but even it says that the most reluctant would recognise that given the improvement we are about to get from the single-tier pension, it is only fair that everybody is asked to do their little extra bit. We hope that the Secretary of State can put beyond doubt the long-term bargain for the self-employed.

[Nigel Mills]

I note the points the right hon. Gentleman is making, and I can see that they have some sense. Does he recognise that a low-earning, self-employed person on £10,000 a year would be paying more national insurance than an employed person who is being paid £10,000? The position is not quite as simple as he is making out.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. My chief concern in this debate on principles is for the long-term bargain to be put on a secure footing. It would be wrong to lead the self-employed up the proverbial garden path by offering a great deal, clapping everyone on the back and voting it through only to see it collapse because it is literally too good to be true.

The final point on which we will press the Secretary of State during the passage of the Bill is probably the most important issue that our constituents will put to us: will the new flat rate pension offer them a comfortable retirement after they have worked so hard for so long? We are concerned that parts of the Bill fail that basic comfort test. Let us be clear that the hard wind-up of the state second pension will create a notional loss for many people under the age of 59. For example, 190,000 people in their 50s could lose between £30 and £35 a week, compared with what they would have got if S2P stayed in place. Someone who has been contracted-in for all of their working life and is aged 55 when the pension is introduced, would in theory have been able to accrue additional state pension for the remaining 11 years of their working life, amounting to £24 a week in additional state pension. That will no longer be possible under the single tier. They will continue to contribute 12% NICs for the rest of their working life, but there will not be an additional S2P entitlement.

The situation is even more grave for those who are just starting work: those in their 20s who will not retire until after 2060. By the Department for Work and Pensions’ own calculations, the majority of them will have lower pensions under the single-tier system, as the income replacement rate will fall from 38% to just 30%—a big drop that points us to the gaping hole where reform of the private pension system should be.

The Government have been clear, as they rehearsed the arguments in the past year, that they want personal accounts to pick up some of the slack for the fall in income replacement rate. There was a degree of consensus on the auto-enrolment system that the Government are now taking forward. We are concerned that the measures to link membership of auto-enrolment to the personal allowance mean that too few people will be involved in the new personal accounts, and that not enough people will be saving for the future.

We are also concerned that the effective shut down of S2P means that workers now lack a state-backed, low-risk option in which to save, which is why we think that now is the time to remove many of the fetters and constraints that were initially constructed for the National Employment Savings Trust, the national pensions mutual created under the Pensions Act 2007. We need to allow transfers in from other schemes, end the upper ceilings on contributions—this is what employers are telling us—and legislate harder for transparency on costs and charges, which is why we have called for an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into workplace pensions. We want to see a simple and comprehensive declaration of the costs of saving in a pension, so that savers can see precisely what is being taken away from them and the long-term impact on the size of their pension pot.

We are concerned that there is a structural problem that needs to be grasped: the fractured and small-scale nature of the offer for many pension savers. Too few funds have the scale to offer savers the best investment decisions or the lowest charges. The Government must look much harder at how to foster an industry of bigger, simpler and cheaper funds.

We can learn many lessons from countries such as Australia, particularly on the establishment of a low-cost default pension fund; trustee directors for every pension scheme with statutory duties to work in the interests of savers; and requirements to publish a detailed charging structure and past performance to ensure transparency. To deliver this kind of industry for the future, we should be considering a legal requirement that all pension schemes prioritise the interests of savers over those of shareholders. We should also be considering obligations on trustees to assess whether schemes have sufficient scale to deliver low costs, and if the assessment is that a scheme is too small to deliver this, trustees should be empowered to investigate merging with other schemes. Finally, we should consider whether regulators should be empowered to mandate small schemes to merge, as is done in Australia.

In conclusion, the Opposition have always believed that matters as serious as those in the Bill should be approached in a spirit of national consensus, and I say again that I am grateful to the Secretary of State for how he has approached the debate, but the House must ask whether the new pensions provision is sustainable, comfortable and genuinely universal. I am afraid that we believe the answers are no, no and no again. We agree on some of the principles, but now is not the time for a failure of nerve; this is half a Bill, half a reform, and as the Bill goes through the House, I urge him to be more radical, to build on his inheritance and to give us a long-term scheme that will deliver a better standard of living for pensioners who have worked so hard for so long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and the introduction of the single-tier pension. The simple truth is that our pension arrangements have not kept pace with changes in lifestyles. I commend Members from all parts of the House for their constructive contributions. I hope that the Minister will address their concerns. This is a measure that he can be proud of because it will entrench the welfare state for the 21st century and make it sustainable, but there are some tweaks around the edges that we need to get right.

I commend the Bill for maintaining the principle of national insurance. In recent years, much of our welfare bill has become means-tested or universal, rather than contributions-based, which, as we all know, is not what Beveridge intended. The Bill will entrench the contributory principle, not least by recognising the contribution of self-employed workers and by improving the treatment of women who take time out to raise families.

On the whole, the Bill is very good for women, but I do have concerns that I hope the Minister will reflect on in Committee. The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee raised the concern about women who will be disadvantaged because they have stayed at home to be homemakers, but have not had children. That group of people has been identified by Age Concern. They are people who have never worked, but who had expected to inherit pension rights on the basis of their husbands’ contributions. It is easy for women of my generation to be sniffy about women who have never worked, but we need to look at what society was like. That was a legitimate lifestyle choice. Those people were homemakers, and we should not diminish that role. Now that we are in the era of the ready meal, encouraging more homemaking might address the rise in obesity and diabetes, but I digress.

We are retrospectively trying to change people’s expectations of how they will provide for their retirement—a fundamental unfairness. People will be affected by this problem if the husband retires under the current system and the wife under the reformed single-tier pension. We are changing the deal that such people have anticipated for many years, and at a time in their lives when they can do precious little to deal with it.

I will illustrate the problem with an example. I have been lobbied by a constituent who is extremely anxious about the changes. Her husband will retire in three years and she in five. She fully anticipated inheriting derived rights from her husband’s pension. She has never worked, has never had children and has struggled with illness all her life. She will therefore not be covered by the transitional arrangements for women with lower contributions. The couple have dealt with the challenges that life has thrown at them with considerable stoicism and with no help from the state. This is the one period in their lives when they have expected the state to honour the deal. They have planned for their retirement on the one national insurance record and they now find that the goalposts have been moved.

I firmly believe that putting such people at a disadvantage is not the intention of the Government, but one of the unintended consequences of this significant and positive reform for women generally. Will the Minister look at that group of people?

It has been estimated that 30,000 women will be affected. I notice the Work and Pensions Committee has recommended looking at women who are within 10 years of retirement and at where the current inherited rights could be retained. As I understand it, one reason the Government are not minded to alter the system is that some 70% of women who would benefit from that provision live overseas. I completely endorse their position in not wanting to pay pensions to widows living overseas—particularly those who may never have had any real relationship with this country—but we could look at protecting widowed ladies who are expecting a pension if they are resident in this country. I doubt whether such a provision would be particularly costly because, as we have said, it is a small and diminishing group.

Although lifestyles have changed over time and women tend to work more than stay at home, we should not discriminate against those whose lifestyles do not fit that profile, particularly when we are effectively retrospectively changing their plans for retirement. I make a wider point that much action in public policy is sending out a sign that society does not value women who do not work full time. I consider that regrettable, and I speak as someone who is as much of a feminist as anyone else. We must recognise that running a home is every bit as valuable as anything else a woman might do.

On a more positive note, I give an enthusiastic welcome to the improved provisions for the self-employed, and I was disappointed to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I do not know what it is about those on the Opposition Benches, but they are so negative about the self-employed.

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman because he has been critical in the past of the self-employed.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady makes an important argument that I am following with great interest. The Opposition are trying to say that this is an extraordinary deal for the self-employed, who are paying half the national insurance contributions of everybody else but still enjoying 100% of the pension. The key assurance we are looking for from the Government is that this is a deal for the long term. It is not clear that this deal will stick; it is generous and sounds good for the self-employed, but is it there for the long term? We think the self-employed demand certainty.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I agree that the self-employed demand certainty, and one reason the deal needs to be generous is that the self-employed do not have access to occupational pension schemes. At a time when self-employment is increasing, the role of the self-employed is growing, not least because people have different work patterns throughout their life. Some will go from employment to self-employment and so on, and we must allow them to make sufficient contributions.

Let us reward and celebrate entrepreneurism in our economy. It is playing a significant role in creating jobs and growth and should be welcomed—I gather it is now 40.2% of the economy, and I can only see that growing. We must do our bit to nurture and support entrepreneurship, not get in its way. The mealy-mouthed and churlish comments about pork-barrel politics for a group of people who are working hard and doing their best do those on the Opposition Benches no credit whatsoever.

Finally, I congratulate the Government on their determination to continue supporting pensioners more generally, and the Minister on the triple lock. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) reminded us, the days of the 75p rise are long gone, and I hope pensioners realise that Government Members are on their side. If people work hard and do the right thing, we will support them. That means that we owe our pensioners who have worked hard and contributed. I hope the protections that we have given them will be recognised, and that we can lay a good foundation for our pension system in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

I agree broadly with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that it is fair to accuse the right hon. Member for Birkenhead of fudging, as he is not in his place to defend himself. Certainly, on some issues he has said things that for many are unpalatable, and he has not been shy of spelling out the consequences in some scenarios. I just disagree with what he said about the Bill and women—the Bill will improve matters; it is not the Bill that is creating the difficulty for those in the 1951 to 1953 group—and with what he said about the self-employed. Mostly, I took exception to what he was saying on the latter.

I was astonished that—I assume that he does not speak on behalf of the Labour party on this issue, but perhaps he is doing so—the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Bill was terribly unfair because it would not cut pensions further for those in the public sector, compared with those in the private sector. That is a courageous thing for a Labour Member to say. It may be that the National Union of Teachers, from which we have heard, will be writing to him about the policy he is urging for his party.

The Government have undertaken significant reforms to the various state pension schemes which were chronically insufficient under the previous Government. We have taken significant action on a number of different schemes. Like many other MPs, I have met a lot of policemen and policewomen at my surgeries who are very upset about the reforms, but I try to explain to them that their pensions are still far better than those for the vast majority of people who live in my constituency.

The cost of state pension schemes, in particular the extra paid in versus what is coming out to the Exchequer, will continue to increase strongly. Whether that has put those schemes in a sustainable position might remain a subject for debate, but people with such pensions have had significant increases in contribution rates. I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead when he complains that the private sector will be able to reduce benefits because of the reduced amount going in, but that the public sector will not, when so much has already been done in the public sector. We have taken the issue of the various public sector schemes separately and we should continue to address it on its merits, rather than through the Bill.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. Is he as concerned as I am about where on earth the public sector will get £4 billion-worth of new NICs after 2016?

[Mark Reckless]

I was just about to come on to that point. That is an extraordinary challenge. Public sector workers will have to pay more, as they will not receive the contracted out national insurance reduction. I think that is fair, because they will benefit from the state second pension, and even the NUT realises that they are getting a good deal. In perhaps eight or nine years, they could build up to the whole single-tier pension, despite having a number of decades in their working life when they had benefited from being contracted out. That is a good deal for many of those employees. It will be a significant challenge for employers, however, and will imply a significant further reduction in public spending in these areas early in the next Parliament. I would be interested to know whether the shadow Secretary of State has worked out his proposals for dealing with that if—God forbid!—Labour were in office at the time. Further changes might need to be made, but we can use separate legislation for that, whereas the private sector cannot, so it is right that the Bill provides the opportunity to make adjustments because public sector workers will no longer benefit from contracting-out provisions.

The huge attraction of the Bill is that it will greatly simplify our pension arrangements. The Minister has done well to make even the transitional arrangements, which inevitably add complexity, as simple as possible, although there remains the job of explaining to our constituents how they will work. Overall, however, the Bill will provide for a pension that accrues on a straight-line basis over 35 years of contributions. People will know what their pension is going to be, and it will be above the limit at which people got top-ups under what used to be the minimum income guarantee and pension credit—the system that Labour introduced and which, however well intentioned, effectively punished people who saved and so did not benefit from the measures in place. It dulled, if not destroyed, incentives to save, and that was a terrible mistake. Now we will have a single-tier pension and people will know what they are going to get. It will be taxed, but not withdrawn if people do the right thing and save. That will benefit our constituents, who will know where they stand, and we will have a better pensions system.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

The Minister is nodding, so I will not push the point. However, we are in the new world of portfolio careers, where people change jobs eight, nine or 10 times, with entrance and exit charges every time. I find the point hard to see, but okay.

I have four suggestions for the Bill Committee; if any Whips are listening, I should say that I will not be a part of it. I think there is a case for a cap. The industry sometimes says that a cap would drive down innovation, but we do not need more innovation—we need solid, passive investments that we leave and let go for a long time.

I would like there to be more enforced simplicity. We should look at what the Department of Energy and Climate Change has done with electricity and gas charges. It has insisted that bands should be brought in so that there is comparability and consumers can say, “I’ll go with them” rather than being swamped in a myriad of complexity. Pensions are massively more material to the well-being of most people than utility bills, yet they are massively more complex. Perhaps we could consider standard charges and standard comparisons of the annuity market, so that when people choose an annuity they are much more able to make a reasoned decision. The Cooper reforms in Australia are an example of that, and I would like us to move down that route.

I have given annuity transfers a great deal of thought. I know that the market is saying that people will be sent letters to ensure that they have checked out the market before they go with their base supplier. Personally, I think there is a case for saying that the base supplier should not be allowed to provide an annuity. If we really want to force the market to work, we should do something such as that. If we are going to leave the matter with the base supplier or the organisation that the person has saved with, we could ensure that they register so that we know that people have properly considered the option of going elsewhere.

Finally, I turn to tax relief. I said at the start that our pension system has a structure different from that of a lot of countries in Europe. We have smaller basic provision; we then give a lot of tax relief and hope that the private market will take care of the situation. We spend about £30 billion a year on tax relief.

[Mr Byrne]

It is £44 billion.

[David Mowat]

I am told that the figure is £44 billion: a lot of money. It behoves us—it behoved the last Government, as well—to ensure that that money is spent effectively in a targeted way. My concern is that that money is part of the reason why the charge rates in our market are higher than in other countries and that effectively, our tax relief, whether £30 billion or £44 billion, is going into property prices in Kensington and Chelsea and not into people’s annuities and pension value.

Before I sit down, I want to reiterate that auto-enrolment, which I have been going on about for the past couple of years, has made it even more important for us to fix the situation. The industry cannot be left to play it long and hope that we take a long time to do something about the abuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We have had five hours to talk about pensions—what could be better? The debate has been unusual in the sense that the Government have had support for the Bill and its principles from Members on both sides of the House. That is vital, as the Chair of Work and Pensions Committee and others have said. Pensions reform that will last and that will not be blown about by changes of Government—in the long term, obviously—is a good thing. I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed the Bill and its central measure, the single-tier pension.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began the debate in characteristically statesman-like fashion and in a non-partisan way. Unfortunately, that was not immediately followed. This reform deals with fairness, gives decent pensions to women, and tackles the poor pension position of the self-employed, which is vital. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is no longer in his place, set hares running. He seemed to believe that assisting the self-employed is pork-barrel politics because, apparently, the massed ranks of the self-employed are all Liberal Democrats, which I was pleased to hear.

I am pleased that my coalition colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) welcomed the measures on the self-employed, who for many years have been excluded from the full state pension. The previous Government recognised that there was a problem and did a research report. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was the Minister with responsibility for pensions at the time or which of my 10 predecessors was, but I found the report on the top shelf when I moved in. It had been put in the “too difficult” box, which was overflowing. This Government have grasped the nettle and provided for the self-employed to be full members of the state pension system. I have never heard a Government measure described as too good to be true, as that measure was described today, but I can assure the House that the deal is that the self-employed are full members. Low-earning self-employed people pay more national insurance than their low-waged counterparts. It therefore is not a freebie—the self-employed pay national insurance, and they should be part of the system.

I shall try to address the specific issues that arose during the debate. Several members of the Work and Pensions Committee spoke. I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and their Committee colleagues for their pre-legislative scrutiny of clause 1. They suggested a number of amendments, including putting the start date of 2016 in the Bill, which we have done, and making 10 years the maximum minimum for a pension, which was welcomed by my hon. Friend. He pressed me mercilessly when I gave evidence, and we were pleased to give him what he wanted. I was keen on having him on the Public Bill Committee, but went a bit cool on the suggestion when he said he likes to table amendments.

I will address a number of the substantive issues raised in the debate in turn, the first of which is the move from 30 to 35 years. To be clear, 30 years currently gets people a basic state pension of £110 a week, and 35 years gets people a full single-tier pension of £144 a week. We are therefore not comparing like with like. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government are merging a basic pension for which people work for 30 years with a second pension, for which people might work for 50 years. Thirty-five for the merged pension is therefore hardly ungenerous. If people who have already retired on the expectation of 30 years would have got more under the old rules than they will get under the new rules, they will get what they would have got under the old rules, so nobody in that situation will get less than they were expecting.

That brings me on to women born between 1951 and 1953. To be clear, they will receive their state pension on the day they would have got it if Labour had continued in office. We have not changed their state pension age. They will receive the pension they would have got had Labour continued in office. We have changed, with one exception, neither their pension age nor their pension amount. To hear Opposition Members talk about this group of women, one would think we have ripped them off, taken money off them and created losers. They are getting the pension they were going to get on the day they were going to get it.

There is one exception to that. We have changed something for this group: we have given them a bigger pension, because of the triple lock. If the Labour Government had continued in office, their pension would have been price indexed. We introduced the triple lock, so each one of those women born between 1951 and 1953 will receive a bigger pension under this Government’s policy than under the continuation of the previous Government’s policy.

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister is making a powerful winding-up speech. He told the Financial Times this morning that he has not set triple-lock policy for the next Parliament. Is that still the case?

[Steve Webb]

Let me be absolutely clear: the triple lock, as a concept, was in the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was agreed and implemented by the coalition, and I want it to carry on after the next election. There is no question about it. I should add that all the figures in the coalition’s impact assessment on the Bill are premised on the assumption of the continuation of the triple lock.

[Mr Byrne]

Is the Minister saying to the House tonight, and will the Chancellor confirm in the spending review, that the triple-lock policy will apply to this pension for the next Parliament—yes or no?

[Steve Webb]

Just to be clear, the single tier comes in in 2016, which is not within the scope of the spending review, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows. I was interested in what he had to say about pension spending, because apparently pensions will be included in the cap on welfare. As I understand it, if a Labour Government had a bad year on housing benefit, they would take some money off pensions. How would they do that? We were told this week that they would not undermine the triple lock, so what is left? They are in favour of raising the state pension age. As I understand it, if they have a bad year on housing benefit they will jack up the state pension age in the next year to make up the shortfall—that does not make any sense.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman twice already, so I will make some progress.

A number of hon. Members raised matters of detail. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who said that he had approached the Bill in a spirit of scepticism. He is right to have done so. We should approach all new pension reforms in a spirit of scepticism, because there have been so many of them. One of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me is that the more he found out about the Bill the more he liked it. I am grateful to him for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood asked a specific question on whether someone who defers under the current system past 2016 will continue to receive the current generous terms after 2016. He also paid tribute to the staff in the House of Commons Library—he mentioned Djuna Thurley specifically—who have to wrestle with complex legislation. I echo that tribute. A lot of legislation is complex and difficult, and I think all of us accept that the Library provides us with great support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) asked about another group and the whole issue of derived rights. The single-tier pension is designed for the future, whereas the current state pension system is rooted in the 1940s when men had jobs and women had husbands. We cannot go on like that. We have introduced a lot of transitional protection. For example, there was an option for women to pay something quaintly called the married woman’s stamp. If they did that at any point in the 35 years up to their pension age, we would protect them and pay them the pension they would have got. There is extensive transitional protection.

My hon. Friend raised the question of what she described as homemakers. People who are not in the paid labour force can still receive protection for their pension rights in a number of circumstances. If they are at home with children, caring for an elderly or disabled relative, or are unemployed and looking for a job, they receive credits. If they are too sick to work, they receive national insurance benefits credits. So a whole raft of circumstances are covered.

My hon. Friend mentioned a specific and narrow group of people—childless homemakers. Interestingly, at the start of her speech, she said how important the contributory principle was—I agree with that—and she was right that in many ways the Bill reasserts that principle. To reassert it, however, and then say that someone who has paid no national insurance, not been a carer, not been looking for work and not been too sick to work should none the less get a significant pension creates a tension. I can reveal to the House that she and I discussed this issue in the Tea Room before we got here, and she said, “But aren’t you changing the rules late in the day?”, as she also said in her speech. We have to strike a balance between moving to a new system and protecting people as we move, and not setting in aspic every single corner of the old system.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, “You can’t go on running two separate systems”, and then demanded that we keep various bits of the old system going for another 15 years while running two separate systems. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, then, that there is extensive protection. If the lady in question were widowed, for example, there would be pension credit of £145, so if she had nothing else she would be brought up more or less to the same level. Extensive protections are in place. I cannot promise that every single person will be protected in every single respect, and nor should I, but there is extensive protection.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

An evaluation that we published last year shows that young people who have had work experience have a better chance of getting off benefit and into work. I am grateful to everybody, including my hon. Friend, who makes available work experience places to give young people a chance to get out of unemployment and into employment.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State give the House his personal forecast for when this year’s allocation for the discretionary housing payment fund will run out?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, because the reality is that we have also said that there is three years’ worth of payments—that is the point of the word “discretionary”, by the way. Local authorities can use the money for precisely the kinds of reasons they want, and their observance is to spend it. We keep it under review, as we have said we will do persistently. I cannot understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mr Byrne]

Let me tell the Secretary of State the point of the question: across the country discretionary housing payment fund money is about to run out. In my home city of Birmingham applications are up five times on last year. That policy means that in places such as the north-east three-bedroom houses are now standing empty because people cannot afford to move in. There are now 53,000 households in our country being put up in temporary accommodation, which is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. When will he admit the truth: the hated bedroom tax now costs more than it saved? It is time to scrap it, and scrap it for good?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Discretionary housing payments are given to councils, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. They set the scheme up. They can top the money up as they wish—[Interruption.] One moment they want discretionary moneys, and the next they do not. That falls into the pattern for the Opposition. When they were in government they lost control of the housing benefit bill, which doubled, and it was due to rise by another £5 billion. Every time they come to the Dispatch Box and oppose what we are doing, it means another spending commitment. They have gone from old Labour to new Labour and now to welfare Labour.

Jobs and Business

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to wind up this debate on the Gracious Speech, but on a topic as serious as this, I cannot help but express a little disappointment at the fact that there have been twice as many speakers from the Opposition Benches as we have heard from the Government Benches. Often, as we have looked at the Government Benches in the course of the debate, we have found them as empty as the Queen’s Speech. There appear to be very few people on the Government Benches who are prepared to defend this Queen’s Speech, just as there were very few people to defend the Budget earlier this year.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s observation. It obviously reflects the amount of support that the Prime Minister has from his Back Benchers. He was so desperate in the earlier stages that he had to have his Parliamentary Private Secretary intervening in the debate.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Looking at the Queen’s Speech, perhaps it is not a surprise that so few people in the Government party are prepared to defend it.

I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary, concluded. After three wasted years, we have this year had a wasted Queen’s Speech. The task on Wednesday was simple—to give us a legislative programme as big as the challenges that face our country. What we got instead was practically nothing. It seems that this Government are incapable of proposing any ideas that they can agree on. They are a weak Government who are out of ideas, and that is why the public want them out of office. They have chosen to fight the biggest economic battle confronting this country for decades by arming themselves only with pea-shooters.

We should be clear about the task that we confront. It was set out brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. We have an economy that is flatlining. We have growth of just 1.8%. That is a third of the level of growth seen in the United States. Living standards are falling. The wages of our constituents have fallen by £1,700 a year since the election. Our constituents are getting poorer. GDP per capita has fallen by £1,500 since the election. Unemployment is rising and is 90,000 higher than at the election. The consequence of all this is a catastrophe for the public finances. Borrowing is now £245 billion more than forecast. Worst of all, perhaps, is what is happening to the fundamentals of our economy.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) expressed some confidence that the economy is beginning to rebalance. If only. Consumer demand is flat. Business investment is stalled. We had great hopes that economic growth would come from some kind of rebalancing towards exports. As the Business Secretary said in his lengthy but rather good essay in the New Statesman not long ago, there is not necessarily a problem with global demand. The problem is that we in these islands are not tapping into that demand.

Our exchange rate has fallen by roughly 20% since 2007, but exports have grown by 1% or 2%. Once upon a time the OBR forecast that net trade would add 1.2% to GDP. Now it admits that net trade is a drag on growth, not a boost. That is a huge contrast to what we saw in the 1990s, when sterling depreciated by about 20% and exports grew by a third. If our economy is to grow at the level that the OBR forecasts it should between now and 2016-17, we need to grow exports by 45% over and above the level we saw in 2009, but we are simply not on track to deliver that change.

[Mark Hendrick]

I am listening with interest to my right hon. Friend’s comments on growth. Does he think, as some Government Members do, that withdrawing from the European Union is likely to increase jobs and growth in this country?

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was outlined very well in today’s newspapers by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. At a time when we are struggling to grow our export base, why on earth would we choose voluntarily to put in jeopardy our membership of the world’s largest free trade zone?

The challenge is not simply that global demand conditions are weak—the Business Secretary said as much in his New Statesman essay—but that our exporters are losing market share. The Prime Minister is fond of telling us that we are in a global race, but the problem is that we have stalled on the starting grid. He is instead locking us into a race to the bottom, with a policy that will deliver nothing better than low growth, low skills and a low-wage future.

Those are the challenges that the Queen’s Speech should have addressed—the investment crisis on the one hand and the jobs crisis on the other—but there were big holes where the Bills on promoting investment and growing jobs should have been. Let us start with the investment crisis. The Breedon review showed some time ago that SMEs in our country confront banks that are deleveraging on a scale unseen anywhere else in Europe. The country’s investment rate is now under 15%. It is flatlining and well below the levels seen elsewhere in Europe. Business investment is £11 billion lower than it was during the peak before the crash, and there is falling investment in the venture capital industry, which is £80 million down on the latest set of figures.

Meanwhile, in corporate bank accounts cash is piling up. It is what the incoming Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has criticised in Canada as the phenomenon of “dead money”. Dead money is piling up in bank accounts in this country because the business community does not have confidence in the Government’s economic plans, yet all we got in the Queen’s Speech was a carry-over Bill on bank reform. As the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) said, that will probably not unlock the kind of business and banking investment we need. The Chair of the Treasury Committee has criticised the Bill because he found the Government’s arguments insubstantial. We did not get answers to Britain’s investment crisis in the Queen’s Speech, which is why it is such a wasted opportunity.

The wasted opportunity on jobs is perhaps more serious. Unemployment today is 90,000 higher than it was at the general election. There is simply not enough work to go around. Once upon a time we were promised a welfare revolution, and no doubt it was well intentioned, but the Work programme is not delivering for those who need jobs or those on employment and support allowance. I look forward to some reassurance from the Secretary of State when he responds. Universal credit, again, was a good idea, but if its virtues are confined to 300 citizens in Tameside, I am afraid that it will not revolutionise the back-to-work business here in Britain.

Perhaps worst of all, the Secretary of State stands before us today as a man who has failed the test he set himself in Easterhouse. Unemployment on three quarters of our worst estates is going up, not coming down, and long-term unemployment is going up on two thirds of those estates. Three years into this Parliament, that is simply not good enough, and it is not good enough that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to fix it.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about rising unemployment on some of our estates. Does he not accept any responsibility for failing to give those people the skills they need to access the opportunities that do exist across our economy? I think that is why some people on our estates are, unfortunately, finding it so hard to get the employment opportunities that do exist.

[Mr Byrne]

Apprenticeships quadrupled during our time in office. In the decade before the crash, we achieved rising productivity and rising wage growth. That is why wages were so much higher when we left office than when we began. Because we invested in skills, our record on rising wages was beaten only by Ireland and Australia. The Government should be building on that record, not watering it down.

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I am going to move on quickly because I need to refer to some contributions to the debate.

The price that is being paid by our constituents, including our young people, has been well set out. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke eloquently, with force and power, about the price being paid by young people and the long-term damage that is being confronted. Some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), face very high levels of youth unemployment in their constituencies. To echo the substance of the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), we need more apprenticeships, not least because in many parts of our country right now—in Yorkshire, the north-east and the north-west—employers are saying that they cannot get skilled workers at a time when unemployment is higher than it was at the last election. That shows that the system put in place by this Government is not working.

We need to do more for the long-term unemployed. We also need to do more to support women back into work. In a brilliant speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) argued powerfully that women are not being supported into work at the rate we would like. The shambles that we saw in the House yesterday on child care policy did not give us much confidence that things are going to change. The price of failure is being paid by families and the 2.5 million people denied the chance to work. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). As we heard in the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), very many families are contending with falling wages and rising living costs because there is simply not enough work to go round.

Perhaps worst of all for the long term is the price being paid through rising levels of child poverty, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow spoke eloquently. We lifted 1 million children out of poverty during our time in office, and now most commentators agree that all that progress will be wiped out by the decisions of this Government. It is record of shame that we will hang around their neck at the next election. That is why it is such a tragedy that at a time when so many people are paying so much, the Government singled out as their chief priority giving a £2,000-a-week tax cut to millionaires.

We will look carefully at some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech. We will study with close attention the proposals on mesothelioma. I will heed the words and sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. The consultation that we undertook in February 2010 is the benchmark against which we will judge the Bill, and if we find it wanting we will oppose it.

We will look closely at the plans for flat-rate pensions. We support the principle of a flat-rate pension, which locks in the changes we made in office that lifted so many pensioners out of poverty. We hope, however, that the Government will acknowledge that many people’s income replacement rate will fall very low under these proposals. Unless there is reform of the private pensions industry that frees the fetters on the National Employment Savings Trust, caps charges and ensures that there is real transparency, we do not believe that plans are yet in place for a low-cost, low-risk private alternative to help people to save for the long term. That will be the thrust of our opposition to and constructive engagement with the Bill when it comes to this place.

As many colleagues have said, the tragedy of this Queen’s Speech debate is that there was an alternative. We proposed a jobs Bill that would have given the chance of work to young people unemployed for more than a year and to the long-term unemployed out of work for more than two years. We would have used an injection of capital into the construction industry to get our country back to work.

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will not.

We would have used procurement powers much more strategically to get our young people and long-term unemployed back into work.

[Christopher Pincher]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I am going to spare my time for the Secretary of State, I am afraid.

Those were the kinds of measures that we should have seen in this Queen’s Speech. They are simple, costable and easily affordable, and they would have helped to get our country back to work. To conclude, the struggle for jobs has always been at the heart of the struggle of our movement. When Keir Hardie rose on the Benches behind me to make the first speech of a Labour MP in this House, he insisted on the principle of work or maintenance. In our first election address, “Useful Work for the Unemployed” was our rallying cry. Next year marks an important anniversary in that long struggle for jobs. It is the 70th anniversary of the White Paper on employment policy, which accepted for the first time that the Government had a responsibility to ensure that everybody who wanted to work and could work had a job.

Once upon a time, the Conservative party agreed with that principle. When Rab Butler spoke to the 1953 Conservative party conference he said that anyone who believes in

“creating pools of unemployment should be thrown into them and made to swim”.

It is 40 years since the Conservative party backed away from those principles, starting with Sir Keith Joseph’s speech in Preston.

We could pay down our national debt faster if we got our country back to work. That is why the one idea that should have been at the heart of this Queen’s Speech was a plan for jobs and full employment. That is how we rebuilt our country after the second world war and how we rebuilt public services in 1997. Those are the ideas that we needed in the Queen’s Speech. Instead, we have a Government who are out of ideas. The day is fast approaching when we will run them out of office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will finish a couple of quick points and then I will happily take more interventions.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made a point about unemployment in her area and the north-east in general. Employment and unemployment are big issues for us all, but I say to the hon. Lady, and to others, that since the election employment in every single area and region of the UK is up from where we found it. Employment is up—I will return to that point in a moment—and what the Government have done has helped that.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) complained about the absence of legislation on overseas aid, but I thought she might have been a little more generous about the fact that this Government are the first to make such a commitment— stay static, get to 0.7% of GDP, and implement it. It would be more helpful to say, “Yes, this is the right thing to do.” We can by all means debate whether we need to lock that commitment into legislation, but the reality is that we have locked it in because the Government have made it clear that we will not depart from it. We can debate the realities of the legislation, but we are spending more as a proportion of our gross domestic product than any other Government have previously done, and that has shown a lead to the rest of the world.

Let me turn to the Gracious Speech, which I feel has set the tone for a real change to society. I am proud that my Department will be initiating and taking through the Pensions Bill, which is the most important reform and change. It follows a series of reforms and changes that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb) has taken through with me: automatic enrolment and ensuring that consultants will not be able to overcharge people for that; making the necessary changes; and, finally, the single tier pension, which I know is close to his heart. I take this opportunity publicly to congratulate my hon. Friend on the hard work he has put in. Without it, the Bill would not exist and it is a very good thing.

With the Immigration Bill we are picking up the pieces of Labour’s immigration strategy that saw net immigration of more than 2 million people between 1997 and 2010. New legislation will ensure we have the power to limit access to public services and housing, attracting people who will contribute, and deterring those who will not. As contributions from Government Members have made clear, we are already making progress towards that business-led recovery, and out of the mess left by the previous Government we are creating jobs and helping people get into work.

That brings me to a series of points about labour market stats. Let me run through a few of the realities, even though sometimes it does not help the Opposition. Since the last election, the number of people with a job is up by well over 750,000. There are 1.25 million more private sector jobs since the election, meaning that over the past year, six private sector jobs have been created for every job lost in the public sector. The number of people of working-age—

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I want to get through this point because I think it is important. The number of working-age people without a job is down—I stress that—by 350,000 since the 2010 election, driven by falling inactivity. Inactivity is now at its lowest level for two decades; the Labour party left us with a high rate of inactivity, and we have lowered it. There are now fewer people and fewer young people on jobseeker’s allowance than when Labour was in office. The number of claimants aged 18 has fallen for the 10th consecutive month. In April, we had the lowest number of new jobseeker’s claims for four years, alongside falling redundancies. Let me deal with Opposition Members’ suggestion that those people are moving not into real work, but into part-time work. That is not true. In fact, full-time employment is up more than 500,000 since 2010—it is up 64,000 on the last quarter alone.

My final point on that is that Opposition Members need to lift their heads up occasionally and look elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills compared our situation with that of France, which has 11% unemployment. That comparison bears out very well what the Government are doing. The UK’s overall employment rate is growing at almost double that of the US, and faster than the rate in any other G7 country. That is because the Government have taken the tough decisions to ensure that we have the flexibilities and that people can get back to work. The private sector is now creating jobs, whereas under the previous Government, it was shedding jobs.

Let me remind Labour Members that, for all their crocodile tears, long-term unemployment nearly doubled in two years under the previous Government—from 400,000 in 2008 to 800,000 in 2010. That was a failure on their part. They gerrymandered the figures on youth unemployment, but when we take the gerrymandering out, we find that youth unemployment is now lower than when the Labour Government left office.

The Work programme is a success. In fact, the Office for National Statistics wrote the other day to a number people correcting how they interpreted the figures. It made it very clear that what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and others have said about the statistics was completely wrong. The ONS has said that the reality is that the figure of 2% or 3% that he has been using, which is below the minimum performance level, is incorrect. It went on to say that the realistic and more relevant figure is that 8.6% of those referred to the Work programme are in sustained employment in the first six months. That was ahead of the previous position. By the way, I remind him that, unlike all his other programmes, people do not get paid unless they get people into sustained work. That is unlike what happened under the future jobs fund and the flexible new deal, when the Labour Government paid up ahead and wasted the money.

[Mr Byrne]

A payment-by-results system does not cost much money if there are no results. If the Secretary of State is so proud of the 8% figure, why did his Department not use it when it published the results?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The figure was there and we told the right hon. Gentleman, but he refused to listen—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. The ONS has pointed that out. The point I am making to him is that, when we produce the next figures, the Work programme will show that it is dramatically improving and getting more people back into work. [Interruption.] I will deal with that point, because the right hon. Gentleman believes he has an alternative. He spoke of introducing a new programme. His new programme is a real mess—it has changed on a number of points. When he first referred to it at, I believe, the last Labour party conference, he was offering those who had been unemployed for one year or more a guaranteed job for 12 months.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Hang on a second. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman at the time, that programme sounded rather familiar, so I looked up the programme the previous Government were considering—it was called “step up”. That programme, which was piloted in 20 areas and which bore an uncanny resemblance to his latest programme, gave paid employment to new deal failures who had been out of work for two years. It was never rolled out nationally because it was discredited, even within the Labour party, as not giving value for money. For those nearest to the labour market and those under 25, “step up” had a negative impact on work prospects and came in at a massive cost of £10,000.

After the programme he announced at the party conference was discredited, the right hon. Gentleman went away, fiddled with his plans and came back with a new plan. He will now mandate people to a job for six months, which is half the length of time he previously advertised. Even as recently as April, the Opposition seemed to be in a mess. There is complete confusion. The shadow Chancellor spoke of a guarantee of one year for young people and two years for adults.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in one moment. The shadow Chancellor gets in a real mess, so I say simply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that the Labour programme will cost huge sums of money. Like the future jobs fund, it will be good only for the public sector, and there will be a net cost to the Exchequer. He will compound all the failures they ever made. They left us with the biggest deficit. We are cutting the deficit by a third and borrowing is down by £38 billion. We have the fastest growing employment rate in the G7. This Queen’s Speech builds on our success, not on Labour’s failure.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Greg Hands.)

Debate to be resumed Monday 13 May.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I welcome the Budget, which reiterates this Government’s commitment to restoring the damaged economy that we inherited. I remind hon. Members that the deficit—11.2% of GDP—was the largest since the second world war, higher than that of Germany, France and even the USA. The important point is that the deficit fuelled a high debt burden—which had been set to rise dramatically—of 65% of GDP and rising. In fact, if nothing had changed, it was forecast that borrowing would have risen by more than £200 billion during the course of the spending review. The deficit has cost more than £42 billion in interest payments each and every year since we entered office. [Interruption.] I am fascinated to hear that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, says that he is concerned about borrowing. The truth is that under Labour’s plans borrowing was set to rise by another £200 billion, and under its existing plans its solution for the problem of borrowing is to borrow more. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain how that would help the deficit.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way so early in his speech. The previous Chancellor’s Budget would have halved the deficit over the course of four years, but this Budget confirms that borrowing is now set to grow by £254 billion more than first forecast. How can the Secretary of State judge that to be a success?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let us be clear about the plan left by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). Labour Members have been banging on about capital spending over the past 48 hours, but it is worth reminding everyone that while they now claim to want more capital spending, it was set to fall by 7% under the Darling plan. The honest truth is that, notwithstanding the euro crisis and the fact that the rest of Europe is mired in recession, as shown by the situation in Cyprus, the idea that there would have been a continuum and that all would have been well is complete and utter nonsense.

We are reducing the deficit and getting borrowing down, and it is set to fall further. Instead of banging on about capital spending, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill should explain why Labour’s solution, which would send shudders through the world, is to borrow more. That would make our deficit position worse and raise interest rates dramatically, leaving ordinary people unable to afford their home loans.

[Mr Byrne]

The truth is that the Secretary of State is in this hole because the recovery that we left this Government has been knocked out. Growth has now stalled and, as a result, tax revenues are coming in at £5 billion lower than forecast. That is why we needed a Budget that would get back growth and jobs.

On capital spending, is the Secretary of State saying that he now agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said earlier this year:

“If I’m going to be sort of self-critical, there was this reduction in capital spending when we came into the Coalition Government”?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do love these little exchanges with the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure we could become quite friendly—but the reality is that he is dancing around what was actually happening. I remind him that Labour’s capital spending programmes would have resulted in a real cut of 7% compared with our plans. It is all very well for Labour Members to talk about this now, but under the plan they left, capital spending was falling fast. We are spending more than their plan proposed, which would have resulted in a net 7% cut.

Borrowing today is lower than under Labour. It was £159 billion at its peak and it is now £120.9 billion, which is £38 billion lower, and forecasts approved by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that by the end of this Parliament it will be £63 billion lower and falling. [Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the public do not believe that Labour’s plan would have been any better. In fact, it would have been a lot worse and now Labour Members want to make it even more so, because they want to spend more, borrow more and see the deficit rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I know it is difficult in the Chamber for anyone to listen to what anybody else is saying, but I want to return to my point. Under the plan that Labour left behind, capital spending would have been 7% lower compared with what it is today. It is absolutely no good—

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am going to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to contribute and I want to finish responding to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Capital spending was set to fall. The plan that Labour left was to lower capital spending and there is no way around that. He cannot talk about capital spending rising because it was set to fall. We are bringing borrowing down. Labour has no plans at all for that and would raise borrowing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way for the last time, and then I will make some progress.

[Mr Byrne]

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that annual housing starts totalled just 98,000 in 2012. That is 11% down on the previous year, and half the number of homes that it is estimated are needed in this country. That is why Labour is saying clearly that we should spend the proceeds of the 4G licence sale, and half the money from a bank bonus, on building homes. This week’s figures show a 65,000 fall in the number of people working in the construction sector. This country needs investment in building homes, not a spare homes subsidy for the very rich.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have avoided this issue because it is like walking into a large hole of his own making. Let me quote something from his right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister. This is how much he thought of house building:

“Housing is essentially a private sector activity...I don’t see the need for us to continue with such big renovation programmes”.

He cut spending, and I remind Labour Members that house building under his Government fell to the lowest levels since the 1920s—[Interruption.] No, absolutely not. Housing construction orders are up by 32%, and our plans will outstrip the house building figures of the previous Government.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. The reality is that under the previous Government, house building fell to the lowest level since the 1920s.

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. The numbers of people living in overcrowded accommodation rose. The housing waiting list doubled. It was a shambles and a mess, and we are doing more to put it right. The plans in the Budget, which I will come on to, will improve the situation even more.

Let me make some progress. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that we are on course to meet the fiscal mandate one year early. The deficit has already been cut by a third to a forecast 7.4% this year, and it is predicted to fall every year in this Parliament. The likelihood of meeting the supplementary debt target has decreased. Public sector net debt is forecast to be 75.9% of GDP this year, and to peak at 85.6% in 2016-17. However, we have made a £31 billion saving in the debt interest payments predicted two years ago—almost as much as the whole defence budget.

Borrowing is down to £115 billion and forecast to be £87 billion by the end of this Parliament. Even excluding Royal Mail pensions and the asset purchase facility cash transfers, it is already £39 billion lower than the £159 billion peak for borrowing under Labour, and will be £63 billion lower—a reduction of 40%. I remind the House that Labour’s prescription is to borrow more, not less. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that in the absence of measures taken by the Government, total borrowing would have been £200 billion higher between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

It is important to note that since the beginning of this Parliament, issues in the eurozone have made matters very difficult, and in the current economic climate the challenge is harder than anyone could have predicted or hoped. As the OBR, OECD and others have explained, there are real risks to our stability and to others, in particular the financial storm in the eurozone, which shrank by 0.6% last quarter—the largest fall since the height of the crisis. With Europe accounting for 40% of our exports, it is no surprise that weak net trade has impacted on our GDP. In the words of the OBR, the

“unexpectedly poor performance of exports is more than sufficient on its own to explain the shortfall”.

Although the eurozone is expected to remain in recession throughout the year, the UK is forecast for a slight increase in growth. This Budget will, I believe, stimulate growth further still, so let us look at a few of its important measures. We are further reducing the main rate of corporation tax, which we had already lowered to 21%, to 20% from April 2015, down from the very high 28% inherited from Labour. It will now be the lowest rate in the G20. We are also—this is really important for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and for me it is the most important measure in the Budget—merging small company and main rates of tax at 20p. That had been asked for, but as I think Mr Frost said, it goes way past what was actually asked for. It is a real boost to small businesses.

We are increasing capital spending by a further £3 billion more than our existing plans from 2015-16, meaning that the Government will never cut capital to the levels planned by Labour which, I remind hon. Members, would have reduced spending by 7% more than our plans. We are taking measures to dramatically reinvigorate both house buying and the construction industry in this country by extending the excellent right-to-buy scheme, building 15,000 more affordable homes and increasing fivefold the funds available for building for rent. I remind colleagues that one of our biggest problems in getting housing benefit under control is due to the failure of the previous Government to allow enough houses to be built for rent, so that measure will be a huge help. We are introducing Help to Buy—a two-part scheme set over three years, committing £3.5 billion into shared equity loans for new builds, and offering new mortgage guarantees to support £130 billion of mortgages. That is really important.

I was watching the news programmes yesterday, and it was quite amusing to watch the shadow Chancellor run around. More and more he reminds me of the film “Toy Story”, and that rather angry Mr Potato Head who wanders around shouting, screaming and being very angry to absolutely no effect at all. Disaster, chaos, crisis, U-turns—I wonder what he does in his private life when anything goes wrong. He is certainly not much help to his wife I expect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

During the passage of our last Bill, we were clear about who was winning and losing in those circumstances, and I am happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman on that. There are two important things to remember. The Opposition go on about this, but the reality is that in every year of this Government, the wealthiest in society—the top 1%—will pay nearly a quarter of all income tax, and the top 5% will pay nearly half of all tax. The richest will pay more in every single year of this Parliament than they would have paid under the previous Government’s plans. The 14,000 people in the UK who earn more than £1 million a year will pay £14.2 billion in tax this year. Conservatives did not say that they were pleased for people to be filthy rich; Labour did. The previous Government allowed wealthy people to boast that they paid less tax than their cleaners. We need take no lectures on upper rate tax from the Opposition.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what representations he has made to the Chancellor on whether it is right that universal credit should be calculated on post-tax income? The Secretary of State will know that the effect of that is to claw back three quarters of the increase in the personal allowance from Britain’s poorest families.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reality—the right hon. Gentleman needs to get his head around this—is that those who engage with universal credit, all the way up the scale, will be better off than they would have been going back to work under all the measures in place at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

As if we needed it, Wednesday’s Budget was the final, definitive, categorical proof that plan A has failed. Growth has halved; it will be lower this year and next year than was forecast. The deficit is not falling; it is static. The IFS said yesterday that the only way for the Chancellor to bring the deficit down this year and ensure that it is lower than last year would be to pay this year’s bills next year. Paul Johnson of the IFS concluded:

“The truth is that borrowing is the same this year as it was last year. And it will be the same next year as this year.”

Total debt is not down; it is going through the roof because the Government’s fiscal plans are in tatters. Borrowing is set to be £245 billion higher than was forecast. We were promised that the books would be balanced by 2015. That is a promise broken. According to Wednesday’s figures, the national debt will not be falling until 2017-18.

I am glad that the Secretary of State raised the idea of the global race. The House will have seen from the OBR’s figures on Wednesday that the fabled rebalancing that we were promised is simply not happening. Our exchange rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. Exports have grown by 1%. Once upon a time, in its early days, the OBR said that the export boost to GDP was set to be 1.2%. It now admits that net trade is dragging down our economy by 0.8%. What a contrast that is to 20 years ago, when sterling depreciated by 18% and exports grew by more than a third. Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, the OBR says that our market share is deteriorating not because the growth of our trading partners is slowing, but because our exporters have become less competitive. The Chancellor was right to say on Wednesday that we are in a global race. The problem is that we are set to lose it by setting sail for a low growth, low pay, low skill economy, and there was nothing in the Budget to change that course.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing his usual trick of trying to rabbit around the figures and then arrive at an insoluble conclusion. He says that there are difficulties and complains about borrowing, but his prescription is to spend more and to borrow more. Will he please explain who agrees with him that we should spend more and borrow more when our problem is borrowing and our problem is a deficit?

[Mr Byrne]

The chief economist to the IMF has been clear that a different fiscal strategy is needed. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills hinted that what was needed at the moment was a whacking great boost in capital spending, and the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that the Government cut capital spending far too fast. That is why we have set out clear, costed plans to increase capital spending and change course.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister bear responsibility for that catastrophic failure and the failure of their fiscal plans, but, let us be honest, they have been aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has proved incapable of translating his fabled welfare revolution into practice. There could not have been a worse curtain-raiser to Budget day on Wednesday than the unemployment figures that we saw at 9.30 am. Halfway through this Parliament, unemployment is higher than it was at the general election—and it is not going down, it is going up. [Interruption.] I do not know where Government Members were on Wednesday. Unemployment rose on Wednesday. Youth unemployment went up by 50,000 on Wednesday. Unemployment among women went up, not down, on Wednesday. Government Members would do well to live in the real world for once.

[James Duddridge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he admit that unemployment rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) will resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order. Do not argue with the Chair, Mr Duddridge. The hon. Gentleman would not have the foggiest idea when to start or where. He will intervene when permission has been granted, and not before. If he does not like it, he can lump it and he might not speak at all.

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, but I am happy to give way.

[James Duddridge]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought he had already given way, which is why I started. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman who has been kind to give way. The only point I wanted to make was that since 2010 employment has increased. Yes, in my constituency there was a short period last month when unemployment was reported to have gone up, but even on a year-on-year basis employment has gone up and unemployment has gone down for both men and women.

[Mr Byrne]

Unemployment is 50,000 higher than it was at the general election. Those are the facts and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny them.

[Ms Buck]

Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the constant repetition of the mantra from the Conservative Members that there are more people in work than ever before? Will he confirm that the employment rate is still lower than it was in 2008?

[Mr Byrne]

I can confirm that, and I will also say to the House that families are now paying an extraordinary price. They are doing anything and everything to get work. On average, people have taken a £1,250 pay cut since the election, and that is why it is such a bad idea to cut tax credits and give a tax cut to millionaires in two weeks’ time.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me make two things clear. Unemployment is at a lower rate than when we took over in 2010, and there are more people in work than ever before. It is no good the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) harking back to 2008—Labour bust the economy in 2008-09, which led to this problem, and youth unemployment was rising. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is supported by the IMF. Let me quote Christine Lagarde, who said

“when I think back myself to May 2010, when the UK deficit was at 11% and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation”—

the one we are carrying out—

“programme had been decided... I shiver.”

She shivers at the problems caused by the previous Government and what they would have done.

[Mr Byrne]

The words of the chief economist Olivier Blanchard are clear: the Government are on the wrong fiscal path, and we know that the Business Secretary agrees with us.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is telling a tale of catastrophe. I do not doubt that the country is awash with suffering, but may I draw his attention to UK industrial production, which is at a 20-year low? The point is that it collapsed under his watch: UK industrial production collapsed to a 20-year low under his watch. Will he not just admit that it was his Government who dropped us into this mess?

[Mr Byrne]

We have unemployment rising and debt that is £245 billion higher than forecast. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of that record.

We needed a Budget to get unemployment down and we did not get one. I hoped to see a Budget that delivered for those who are out of work, but what did we get instead? The conclusion of the OBR was clear that the impact of the Budget on growth would be so significant that it would amount to precisely zero. That is what the Secretary of State has managed to negotiate from the Chancellor. He has been turned over, stitched up and done like a kipper yet again.

Any sensible Secretary of State, faced with a collapsing Work programme and rising unemployment, would surely ask for more help today, not tomorrow. People out of work need help today, not in the years to come. What did we see instead? The OBR has weighed up the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and it has concluded that what is in hand is going so well that unemployment will not go down next year, but up—and that is against the projections set out in the 2010 Budget. Next year the International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment is expected to rise from 7.9% to 8%, and the claimant count is set to rise by another 50,000. What is even worse is that the OBR says that the welfare bill will not go down either—it will go up, including for housing benefit. Spending on social security benefits will now be £21 billion higher than the Chancellor first planned.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a strong point. There is no more striking indictment than the fact that in my constituency the number of those claiming for more than 12 months has risen against the previous year by 22.6%. That long-term unemployment—the loss of hope, talent and potential—is a striking indictment of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Not only did we see youth unemployment rise on Wednesday, but the claimant count for long-term unemployment went up again. That is why I say to the Secretary of State that we needed action in the Budget to bring unemployment down.

The organisation of back-to-work schemes under this Secretary of State is now in a state of complete chaos. This is what he had to say about the Work programme in November 2010:

“The difference between this Government and the previous Government will be that the Work programme—the most comprehensive, integrated work programme in existence, certainly, since the war”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 18.]

What have we had instead? We have had a Work programme that has been literally worse than doing nothing: just 2.3% of people referred on to the programme have found sustained jobs. The Public Accounts Committee had this to say:

“Actual performance was even below the Department’s assessment of the non-intervention rate—the number of people that would have found sustained work had the Work Programme not been running.”

Will the Secretary of State now tell us what on earth is going wrong and what he got from the Chancellor to fix it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will hold the right hon. Gentleman to those words when we publish the next figures, because the Work programme will be proven to be a remarkable success. As the Work programme becomes a success, it will actually save the taxpayer money, because none of the companies are paid unless they get people into work for six months. He knows full well that his Government’s programmes were expensive and failed: unemployment rose dramatically, and youth unemployment was rising from as early as 2004, when the economy was meant to be growing.

[Mr Byrne]

I thank the Secretary of State for that bold assertion to the House. Would he like to intervene again and tell me that the targets for employment and support allowance will be hit by Work programme contractors when the data are published in May?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I tell the right hon. Gentleman that when we publish the figures on the Work programme, he will be eating his words.

[Mr Byrne]

I will take that as a no.

The only measure in the Budget that might remotely help jobs is the employment allowance—a welcome idea that we support and for which we have argued before—but it will not kick in until halfway through 2014 and will not be fully up and running until 2015-16, when the GDP growth is forecast to be 2.4%, which is three times the growth forecast this year. We need action on jobs now, not in the first year of the next Parliament.

If we require any proof of the need for a big plan for jobs, we have only to look at the story by Mr Patrick Wintour in today’s Guardian. Here we learn some of the terrible ways in which front-line jobcentre staff are now being asked to reduce the unemployment figures—targets for sanctions and league tables for jobcentres. So tough is the pressure on staff that they are threatened with disciplinary action by their superiors if they fail to deliver for Ministers. They are even given a dictionary of which phrases to spot so that they can catch out jobseekers who have turned up to jobcentres for help. The leaked e-mails tell staff to look out for phrases such as, “I pick up the kids”, “I look after my neighbour’s children” and “I didn’t come in yesterday because my husband was ill”. It beggars belief that Ministers told the House on Monday that no such targets or league tables existed, yet we see from these e-mails that it is deep within the DWP’s culture.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way to the Secretary of State in a moment, because I am going to invite him to apologise to the House.

How on earth could Ministers not have known? How on earth could the House have been given information earlier in the week that was the opposite of the truth? I know that the Secretary of State will apologise, because he is a decent man. On Tuesday, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), said:

“There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 828.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), said:

“There are no targets whatsoever.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 872.]

I am glad that we have secured an independent review of the sanctioning regime in the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill. It was clear that we were right to demand it, and it is now clear that the sanctioning regime is running out of control, so I hope that the Secretary of State will guarantee that the independent review will get to the bottom of every case in which sanctions have been used. If he does not, we will bring forward such amendments in the other place.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, I can absolutely commit to the fact that there are no targets for any sanctions whatsoever. To emphasise that, I should point out that the head of Jobcentre Plus has issued a reminder to everybody in the estate that there are no targets and that there will be no targets, and that anybody using those targets will be disciplined. It was the last Government, not this Government, who set up a target culture; we are breaking with that culture. I see the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her place. The work they do in that jobcentre is remarkable at getting people back to work. They have accelerated and improved their performance. I would love to hear the shadow Secretary of State say to those working hard in jobcentres, “Well done for the work you do in getting record numbers back to work.”

[Mr Byrne]

My admiration for jobcentre staff working under this regime is unbounded. They are good people trapped in bad systems, with a Secretary of State who, I fear, is out of touch.

I have a copy of the e-mail that Mr Wintour reports today, and this is its concluding paragraph:

“Guys, we really need to up the game here”—

on the issuing of sanctions—

“The 5% target is one thing—the fact that we are seeing over 300 people a week and only submitting six of them for possible doubts is simply not quite credible.”

The e-mail says, “So the bottom line. I have until 15 February, along with other area managers, to show an improvement, and then it is a performance improvement plan for me.” He continues:

“Obviously if I am on a PIP…to improve my team’s Stricter Benefit Regime referral rate I will not have a choice but to consider implementing PIPs for those individuals who are clearly not delivering SBR within the team.”

That is why it is important that we have assurances that the independent review, set out in the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, will get to the bottom of every sanction issued.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was extremely disappointed to hear the Secretary of State’s response just now, because we are talking about the jobcentre that serves both our constituencies. The e-mail also states:

“Our district manager is not pleased”.

“James Corbett is not pleased and neither is John”, states the e-mail. It says that because John is

“under pressure to improve our office output and move up the league he has to apply some pressure downwards.”

The e-mail is talking about league tables. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Who does my right hon. Friend think is putting together these league tables and applying this pressure on staff, from a regional perspective down to our jobcentres, to find reasons to sanction people in our community, not because of their behaviour, but simply to meet a target?

[Mr Byrne]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that to the House’s attention. This is an incredibly serious matter.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will in a moment. I assure the Secretary of State that I will give him time to answer.

The e-mail in question starts by stating that Walthamstow is 95th in the league table out of only 109. This is incredibly serious, not least because in response to repeated questioning the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fareham, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wirral West, assured the House earlier in the week that this was not happening, yet it clearly is.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There are no targets for sanctions. There will be no targets. Anybody caught imposing a target will be dealt with. That is absolutely clear. That message has already gone out. It went out before on innumerable occasions. The target culture was under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) did not say one word about the good work being done by staff in her jobcentre. She owes it to them to remind everybody that they are doing a brilliant job in difficult times and have improved their performance dramatically.

[Mr Byrne]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) will speak later and will provide the Secretary of State with a full answer on that. I repeat, however, that if the Government do not make refinements to the Bill, we will move the necessary amendments. I am glad that the independent review has been legally sanctioned in the Bill. We will ensure that it is used to get to the bottom of what is going on, and I am sure he will co-operate.

Just as bad as the lack of action on the Work programme in the Budget were the new surprises about universal credit. The Secretary of State and others have given frequent assurances that the programme is on track, but that raises the question: what on earth is the track? Earlier in the week, we heard in the Financial Times that small businesses were so badly prepared by HMRC for the introduction of real-time information—the method by which payrolls will be updated to calculate universal credit—that the Government have had to U-turn again, only a few days before the change is being introduced. The RTI system for businesses employing fewer than 50 people—covering about 7 million—will be slipped back by six months. There are worries now, not just about the Work programme and the lack of action on bringing down unemployment, but on universal credit.

As I said earlier in the week, the ultimate test for the Secretary of State is this: when he went to Easterhouse all those years ago, he talked about the need for a jobs revolution in this country, but if we now look at the 1% most-unemployed estates in our country, we see that unemployment has not fallen over the first half of the Parliament but gone up. It has gone up in three quarters of estates, and long-term unemployment, which we are so worried about, has risen on two thirds of those estates. This welfare revolution is falling apart, and we needed a Budget for jobs this week to fix it.

The greatest tragedy is who will pay for this failure. We know that a host of cuts, not least the bedroom tax, that are arriving in a couple of weeks will hurt some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Yesterday in Great Yarmouth, together with Lara Norris, I met a woman called Sandra who had cerebral palsy. She has brought up five children, but for reasons of her disability she sleeps separately from her partner, who is her carer. She will be hit by this bedroom tax in a couple of weeks. She now has to take decisions about switching off the heating for half the week because she can no longer afford to heat her home. She has to go to bed and snuggle up in an electric blanket in order to stay warm. That is what is happening in our country, yet these cuts will start on the same day as Britain’s richest citizens are given a tax cut. It is wrong and we should have had action in the Budget to reverse it.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Labour’s general election manifesto contained a commitment to tackle the rising housing benefit bill. Given that Labour has opposed every measure this Government have introduced, what did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind?

[Mr Byrne]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could remind us how much the housing benefit bill was projected to rise in Wednesday’s Budget.

[Jane Ellison]

Answer the question.

[Mr Byrne]

The housing benefit bill is going up by more than £1 billion, because policies such as the bedroom tax will cost more than they save. I cannot remember how many people will be hit by it in the hon. Lady’s constituency, but they will be interested to know that she voted for it. The truth, as she will know, is that those hit by the bedroom tax will have to move to the private rented sector or become homeless. Neither will cost the public purse less; they will cost it more. What we needed in the Budget was not a spare home subsidy; what we needed was action to reverse the hated bedroom tax.

[Jane Ellison]

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. Given that Labour has opposed every measure this Government have introduced to reform welfare and housing benefit, what did he have in mind when that commitment went into the Labour manifesto?

[Mr Byrne]

What we need to bring down the housing benefit bill is to build more homes. That is why we have said that the 4G licences and half the bank bonus tax should be spent on building homes. The Deputy Prime Minister—the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friend—admits that capital spending was cut too fast. I look forward to hearing her justify to her constituents who will hit by the bedroom tax why they should pay £14 a week extra while millionaires get a £2,000 a week tax cut.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I give way to the Secretary of State for the last time.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman—as far as I can see he lives in cloud cuckoo land most of time—that under the last Government housing benefit bills doubled and were set to rise to more than £25 billion this year? We are saving a minimum of £2 billion from that rise. Under Labour the bill would have gone up and we had the lowest house building programme since the 1920s. Really, he should stand up and apologise for the shambles and the mess they left housing in.

[Mr Byrne]

The Secretary of State’s level of delusion is now bettering his previous level. He knows that the policy costings—which he has clearly not read—published by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor show that the housing benefit bill is not going down over the next couple of years, but going up. The Secretary of State’s efforts have been so successful that he is bringing in a policy—the hated bedroom tax—that will cost more than it saves. We saw the proof on Wednesday—housing benefit up by more than £1 billion. That is a mark of his failure.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State cannot rewrite history. This Government inherited the biggest council house building programme for 20 years. One of the first things they did was scrap it. They now have the lowest building starts since the 1920s—lower even than we had, and that is saying something.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we needed in the Budget was determined action to build houses, not another subsidy for Britain’s richest citizens.

Let me start to conclude by reminding the House what most families will now experience. We heard in the Secretary of State’s speech some words about the rise in the personal allowance. The truth is that, even despite the rise in the personal allowance, the cuts buried in the Budget will mean that by April 2014-15 the same family who will see the personal allowance increase to £10,000 will be worse off. They will lose £600 a year in cuts, and my fear is that worse is to come.

The Chancellor gave away a lot of things in the first year of the next Parliament. Although we saw a little of how he will pay for it—he is going to fast-track the flat-rate pension—this is one of the great mysteries of this Budget, and we have not heard much about it yet. When the Minister winds up, I hope he will confirm at what rate the flat-rate pension will be introduced. The original White Paper set the figure at £144, which I notice is lower than £145, which is the combined total of pension credit and the state pension set out in the Budget book on Wednesday. As we know, the advance of the flat-rate pension offers the Treasury a huge national insurance windfall of about £5.5 billion in 2016-17 and 2017-18. What is interesting—we heard nothing about this—is that half of that windfall comes from public sector employers. The Library was able to tell me earlier in the week that the national health service, schools and the police will face a bill for £1.6 billion in higher national insurance contributions. We heard nothing about precisely where that money will come from. I hope the Minister will be able to set our minds at rest and say why this will not be another cut to the NHS in the next Parliament.

The second mystery surrounds the unspecified cuts of £11.5 billion in the first years of the next Parliament. We know that things such as the strivers tax and other cuts to working tax credits will deliver up to £6 billion, but where will the other £5 billion come from? Can DWP Ministers tell us how they will resist another huge great cut to welfare in the June spending review?

We got more of the same from the Chancellor on Wednesday and more of the same from the Secretary of State today. Once upon a time he liked to say that he cared about poverty. No more. One million children on his watch will be pushed into poverty. Tens of thousands of disabled people will follow. Families get less, while millionaires get more, all because this Chancellor has flatlined the economy and because the Secretary of State has asked for nothing, got nothing and delivered nothing to bring down unemployment.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] In my rush to speak, I almost ended up advertising an election leaflet for the Conservative party. It was not intentionally aimed at Opposition Members.

I would like to focus on two quite technical issues that have not been raised but are worth raising, and then turn to some issues affecting Rochford and Southend East, the constituency I have the honour of representing. The first issue is the change to shares and stamp duty on shares on AIM—the alternative investment market. Although the change will not make the front page of the Southend Echo this morning, it will help the longer-term regeneration of small and medium-sized enterprises. However, this is not just about aspiring individuals for an aspiring nation; it is also about aspiring businesses that want a step up. Floating more companies on AIM and raising equity is essential. Reducing stamp duty on AIM, which represents only 6% of shares, is a step in the right direction that will allow small and medium-sized companies in Southend and elsewhere to raise equity, rather than having to rely on banks, which we all know have their own set of problems.

The Government have taken a step in the right direction. I hope that in future Budgets they will consider extending the decision to the other 94% of shares, to allow greater participation by small and medium-sized companies. That would also improve the liquidity of the London financial markets, which, although liquid enough to support basic transactions, will benefit from greater liquidity, which would mean cheaper financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, allowing them to grow further.

The second thing I would to note—again, it will not make the front page of the Southend Echo tomorrow, although I think a number of families will appreciate it when they start to benefit from it—is the change to the child trust fund regulations. The previous Government gave away £250 that could be put in a child trust fund—either a cash fund or an equity fund. This Government did not think that was affordable and introduced junior individual savings accounts. As all those changes were unwrapped, some anomalies emerged. Most people did not put in more money, which was what the previous Government desired; rather, most people’s children had just the £250. Firms are putting up their charging rates disproportionately—for what is, in the case of equities, essentially an index tracker—and people are locked into the funds.

To be frank, I feel a degree of sympathy for the financial services companies involved, because 1.5% on £250 plus a bit of growth does not even pay for the stamp on the statement at the end of the year. However, measures in the Budget will mean that such funds can be converted into junior ISAs. I have not seen the detail—I am not sure whether it has come out of the Treasury—but I would also encourage the Treasury, as well as looking at actual transfers, to consider allowing people, if they choose, to leave the fund to one side and still open a junior ISA. At the moment, people cannot have both open at the same time.

Those are two quite detailed, technical points in the Budget. I should apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for being unfamiliar with the process, but I think that at the beginning of my speech I should have drawn Members’ attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and some work that I do outside the House.

My constituents in Rochford and Southend East talk to me about the cost of fuel—not only individuals, but businesses. In the run-up to the Budget, staff at Churchill’s sandwich bar, where I always get my panini on a Friday—it is very good and I recommend it to all hon. Members who visit my constituency—told me about the fuel cost not just for the business but for their suppliers. The cost made a difference to individuals, even within a sandwich business. When we leverage that up to show the costs to our constituents of other goods with greater transportation costs, we can see that the Budget will not just help aspiring companies. A van driver could save up to £340 a year, a haulier more than £5,000. Those are big numbers and this will assist people.

I welcome the non-increase in beer duty—the reduction by 1p. That will not transform the economic outlook of the United Kingdom, but it is a nice hat-tip to the direction that the Government would like to take in future as we do more for hard-working families.

The £10,000 personal allowance is enormously significant, particularly for young mums looking to get back to work. It provides clarity about the lack of bureaucracy in taxation and all of the first £10,000 will go into their pockets, rather than into tax. There is a barrier to entry to work, not only because of the growth of the economy but because of confusion about the interaction between the benefits system, which has been overly complex, and the taxation system, which has dragged in far too many people too early and too low down the salary scales.

I have been disappointed by the tone of the debate. I am a great fan of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). It is important to be candid when writing and it is an excellent idea to tell people what one wants, although the details about the cappuccino and so on might have gone a little over the top. The infamous letter that said, “Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money left. Kind regards and good luck, Liam,” was not the total picture—even though in humour it is good to be brief. There is no money left and they maxed out the nation’s corporate credit card. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to apologise.

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering me that opportunity. He will know that I also left a Budget, drafted with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who was Chancellor at the time, that would have halved the deficit over four years as opposed to putting the total debt burden of this country up by £245 billion, which is what his Government have secured.

[James Duddridge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for the extra minute of time he has given me. If that was truly the sentiment and he felt that that was the case, why did he not leave that in a note? He left a candid note that gave half the picture.

The truth is that the previous Government ran down the economy. It is as if the nation were a family, and two individuals within that family had been given responsibility for the finance and budget for 10 years each. One spends and borrows and enjoys the good times, and the other has to clear up the mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

In common with most Labour Members, the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of the economy is limited. The reality is that the country’s debt is the responsibility of the Labour Government. However hard Labour Members try to transfer the blame on to the Conservatives, we did not spend that money.

When the current Government took over, £1 for every £4 spent from the public purse went on interest. Borrowing is now £3 billion lower, and the deficit is down by one third. What is Labour’s plan? Labour wants to borrow £200 billion more. I wish we had that money, but we do not have it. That is Labour’s plan.

Meanwhile, the OBR forecasts, post-Budget, 600,000 more jobs in 2013. What is the Labour party doing about jobs? Labour Members pretend that the 1.2 million jobs that have been created are fictional, not real, low-quality and part-time jobs. That is a complete fiction, and they should be embarrassed about it. They should talk the economy up and promote industry, trade, manufacturing and jobs. Are they holding jobs fairs in their constituencies? I have a jobs fair in Northampton North on 17 May. A number of companies will attend. I am doing what I can to improve the jobs market, but all we hear from Labour Members is that they will spend and borrow more, and yet they complain.

Corporation tax will be 20%, which is one of the lowest rates in the world. If we had stuck with Labour’s figures, we would have 3p a pint more in beer duty. Not only has that escalator been cancelled, but 1p has been taken off beer duty, but I have sat in Chamber and heard Labour Members criticise even that. They cannot bring themselves to acknowledge positives.

What is more grating is the self-righteousness of Labour Members. They believe that only they can have any compassion or think in any way of the most disadvantaged in society. Well, I have news for them. My colleagues on the Government Benches are equally if not more compassionate. We do not need to be lectured by those who put this country into such debt.

The dramatic fuel duty measures taken by this Chancellor—[Interruption.] If Labour Front-Benchers want to intervene, I am happy to give way.

[Mr Byrne]

indicated dissent.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

A clear message was sent that people who failed to participate in schemes could lose their benefit for up to 26 weeks. That is the maximum they could lose. What the Court of Appeal said, and what the High Court said previously, was that we should make reference to the fact that if someone had committed a first offence, as it were, we should give details of the amount of benefit they would lose the first time they did not participate in a scheme. In fact, we have changed the notices as a consequence of the High Court judgment. The notice that we sent out said that people would face a loss of up to 26 weeks benefit if they did not take part in the scheme. What the High Court wanted was details of the lower levels of sanctions that could apply in that situation.

There is a broad consensus that mandatory back-to-work schemes are a necessary part of the approach that we take to get people back to work. When a person signs on to receive jobseeker’s allowance, they accept that they have certain responsibilities. It could be called a contract between the jobseeker and the taxpayer. We will offer a huge amount of support to jobseekers, including help to search for jobs, work experience and jobseeker’s allowance. That is our part of the deal. The jobseekers’ part of the contract is to take up the help that we offer. While the vast majority of jobseekers live up to their part of the contract, there are a small minority who are reluctant to do everything they can reasonably be expected to do to get back into work.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

In a moment. For that group of people, it is right that we have the power to mandate them on to different back-to-work schemes, which we think will help them improve their chances of finding work. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) supports that sentiment.

[Mr Byrne]

A couple of years ago now, the Secretary of State gave an assurance to the House that individual jobcentres or jobcentre districts did not have targets for sanctioning jobseekers and that there were not any kind of league tables that ranked jobcentres or districts for sanctions. Will the Minister confirm that that is still his Department’s policy?

[Mr Hoban]

Absolutely. There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions; I have made that point in previous discussions with, I think, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The decisions that need to be made are the right ones. They need to be based on whether people have breached the agreements they have set out with the jobcentre, and there are no targets in place.

Let me set out in a bit more detail the programmes that exist. The programmes might vary from a training course that the Government have paid for so that the claimant gains some essential skills that will increase their chances of finding work, or they might involve a community work placement, whereby claimants can pick up the basic disciplines, such as turning up on time, that every reasonable employer will expect.

We also know that those schemes work. Recent research on our mandatory work activity scheme found that nine in 10 participants said that they better recognised the benefits of a working routine, and around three quarters said that their confidence and ability to work as a team had improved. More than half said that they felt more positive about work than they did before attending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I want to make some more progress.

The Bill will ensure that the Government will not have to refund sanctions on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and will be able to make a decision in cases where no sanction decision has yet been made.

As I have previously stated, the Government have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, to ensure that we are not faced with having to repay benefit sanctions, we have had to press ahead with this fast-track legislation.

I would like to put it on record that I am grateful for the constructive way in which the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and for East Ham have approached this topic. In supporting the Bill, they have allowed us to expedite its progress, thus safeguarding taxpayers’ money.

Following discussions last week with the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, we will be proposing two Government amendments in Committee. The first will reiterate in the Bill that a claimant’s appeal rights against a sanction decision remain unchanged in all matters, apart from those covered by the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments. For example, when a claimant felt that they had good cause for not participating in one of these schemes, they would still be able to appeal to the first tier tribunal on the basis of good cause. That is a helpful reconfirmation of the right of claimants to appeal. Similarly, the Bill will not overturn appeals that have succeeded on the basis of good cause. I hope that our amendment on that provides the clarification that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister now confirm that the grounds of good cause in respect of appeals will remain undisturbed and will include the grounds covered in DWP guidance, which says that good cause can include an unsuitable course, full-time study, health and caring reasons, travel time that is inappropriately long, religious belief, bereavement, attending court and other emergencies? Will he also confirm that, ultimately, the timetable for lodging appeals will remain at 13 months?

[Mr Hoban]

We have been very clear in this amendment. We are confirming the right to appeal, and appeals can proceed on the grounds that are usually available in these situations, which the right hon. Gentleman has listed. The Bill does not change people’s right to appeal, save for appeals based on High Court or Supreme Court judgments.

The second Government amendment that we will bring forward in Committee will require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out a review of the operation of the sanctions validated by this legislation during the first 12 months after Royal Assent. That review will report as soon as possible after the 12-month period, and the report will be laid before Parliament. I hope that these assurances are satisfactory.

To conclude, this Bill is necessary to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to repay up to £130 million in benefits lost through the failure of claimants to take up the Government’s offer of support. It is vital that scarce public resources are targeted at those who need and deserve them most. It would be unacceptable for claimants who have failed to take all reasonable steps to increase their chances of finding work to obtain an undeserved windfall payment. This Bill will prevent that, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This is a very dark day for the once-proud DWP, and it beggars belief that this once-proud Department has found itself in this position under the Secretary of State’s leadership. The organisation of back-to-work schemes is now in a state of total chaos. Once upon a time, back in 2010, the Secretary of State boasted that the Work programme would be the

“most comprehensive, integrated work programme in existence, certainly, since the war”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 17.]

What do we have instead? We have a Work programme that is literally worse than doing nothing. Just 2.3% of people referred on to the programme have found sustained jobs. As has been said, the Public Accounts Committee stated—

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady will want to reflect on this. The Public Accounts Committee said this about the Work programme:

“Actual performance was even below the Department’s assessment of the non-intervention rate—the number of people that would have found sustained work had the Work programme not been running.”

Maybe the hon. Lady can tell me whether she is proud of that.

[Jane Ellison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I was going to tell him that this morning the Work and Pensions Committee was at Willesden Jobcentre Plus. I asked the staff running the programme there, helping people get back to work, how they felt about their efforts being described as worse than nothing. They said it was deeply demoralising and incredibly insulting to their efforts on behalf of the unemployed.

[Mr Byrne]

The truth is that jobcentre staff have so little confidence in the Work programme that they are not referring people to Work programme contactors at anywhere near the rate the Department has estimated. That is the reality of how jobcentre staff feel.

We have had universal credit now beginning its descent into universal chaos, and now we have the news that the regulations designed to encourage jobseekers to take work were so badly drafted that the Court of Appeal struck them down and the Department may as a result be on the hook to repay £130 million in sanctions. The judges could not have been more unequivocal. Here is what they had to say:

“The 2011 Regulations must be quashed.”

I therefore put it to the Secretary of State that this is a day of shame for his Department. The House of Commons Library cannot find an instance of DWP legislation being struck down in this fashion since 1996, under the last Conservative Government. If the Secretary of State had delusions of adequacy, they have been swept away by today’s proposed legislation.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain to claimants, trade unions and everybody who has looked at this Bill why the Labour party will be abstaining today? If this Work programme is no better than no work programme at all, why on earth is the Labour party sitting on its hands?

[Mr Byrne]

I will address that point directly, as the answer is very simple: because this Bill restores the general legal power of the DWP to issue sanctions. It is a broad sui generis power that has been in place since 1911. I will be interested to hear later the hon. Gentleman’s argument on why he thinks the power to issue sanctions, which has been in place since 1911, should now be struck down for the period in question.

The worst aspect of all this is that the Secretary of State was warned that he was heading for a failure not simply in this House, not simply by commentators opposed to his plans, and not simply by people who had a profound disagreement with him, but by the very specialist Committee he set up to advise him on these questions. This is what the Social Security Advisory Committee said about the 2011 regulations:

“SSAC ask why the Department did not opt to narrow the scope of the original regulations”,

Indeed, it was, of course, their broad and unspecified content that the Court of Appeal objected to.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the recent intervention of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), from the Scottish National party Benches. Has my right hon. Friend picked up from those comments that the SNP is totally opposed to sanctions of any kind?

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that no other conclusion can be drawn from that intervention.

The Secretary of State said to us in the House a couple of weeks ago:

“That advice came to us; it was checked and it said that the regulations were fine.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 19.]

Well, either the lawyers are bad or the Secretary of State made the wrong judgment. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a huge number of questions that the Secretary of State must now answer.

If this were the only recent example of such incompetence by a Government Department, we might look on it more sympathetically, but all of us clearly remember the west coast main line debacle that cost taxpayers so much money and all of us remember that the Department for Transport responded by appointing an independent reviewer to get to the bottom of exactly what went wrong and how so much public money was put at risk. That is the response we must see now from the DWP. There must be an independent inquiry into how the Department got this so badly wrong.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the Bill? Does he agree with its impact assessment, which states that a retrospective transfer of £130 million of

“public money to this group of claimants would represent poor value to the taxpayer and will not help those unemployed enter employment”?

Surely, in the current climate he should welcome the swift action taken by the Government. Listening to his interventions and his speech, I am not sure that he or Labour are ready to be custodians of this country’s public finances.

[Mr Byrne]

Right—so a Member of a Government who have just put at risk £130 million of public money says that we would not be safe custodians of public money.

The Secretary of State was given the judgment by the Court of Appeal on 12 February. Weeks later, there was the request for urgent legislation, please. That is highly unsatisfactory. Tests for retrospective legislation have been repeatedly set out in this House and the other place. Tomorrow, the Lords’ Constitution Committee will opine on this Bill. I suspect it will have harsh things to say about its rushed nature which, because it is retrospective and set to a fast timetable, represents the worst of all worlds.

The Secretary of State will be aware, like me, of the principles set down by the Constitution Committee in its 15th report, where it opines on fast-track legislation. There is a need to maintain clear, transparent parliamentary scrutiny, and to maintain “good law”. The right of interested parties to put forward views must be observed. There is a need to ensure that legislation is a proportionate, justified and appropriate response, and is set out so that fundamental constitutional rights are not jeopardised. Crucially, the policy-making process within Government should be transparent. I look forward to hearing how any one of those principles is honoured by the process before us. The test is all the sharper, in that the Secretary of State is in this pickle because he rushed the legislation, against the recommendation of his advisers.

The test for fast-tracked retrospective legislation is the toughest of all. It was a principle the Lords set down in their report on criminal evidence legislation in 2008, which said:

“Legislation to make lawful an action that was done without legal authority…needs to be scrutinised carefully.”

My concern is that this timetable does not deliver that.

At the heart of this debate is the question whether the programmes the Government have in place, which rest on the power the Secretary of State is seeking from us, are in any way effective.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that many people in this country will be shocked to learn that the official Opposition want to vote for this Bill precisely because they want to impose sanctions on people on workfare? Let me give him the example of a 58-year-old constituent of mine who has been unemployed for seven months. She was told that she had to travel miles to work in a Scope charity shop in Worthing or lose benefits. She could not afford to get to Worthing, so she offered to work in the Scope shop in Brighton, but the jobcentre would not allow it. Should she be sanctioned?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point, and that is why we have sought to ensure that the Bill includes our safeguards, which preserve the right to appeal with good cause, and the 13-month appeal window during which people can lodge objections to the sanctions regime. To answer the hon. Lady directly, I do believe that the DWP should be equipped with the power to issue sanctions. That general foundation has been in the hands of Ministers for more than a century. The new deal programmes and the future jobs fund that Labour put in place had sanctions attached to them—indeed, they were tightened by the Welfare Reform Act 2009—and I do not believe that those powers should be empty ones. However, nor do I believe they should be in the ether—in the hands of Ministers who have no obligation to put in place genuine back-to-work programmes that are better than doing nothing, unlike today’s Work programme.

[Derek Twigg]

Is there not evidence in our constituencies of people being taken off benefits for no good reason? For example, a constituent who was attending the funeral of a close relative had her benefits stopped. People with mental health issues, particularly young men, are kicked off benefit for no good reason.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to flag that up. He will know that the DWP’s own guidance says that “good cause” for appealing against a sanction decision includes bereavement where the claimant was arranging or attending a funeral of a close relative or friend. That is why it is vital that we seek to protect these appeal rights in the Bill.

The ultimate test of whether a back-to-work programme is working is perhaps the one the Secretary of State set out when he spoke in Easterhouse all those years ago. He said that

“we need a jobs revolution. Every working-age adult capable of earning a decent living for themselves and their dependants must be helped to have the opportunity to do so”.

Since he took office, unemployment has increased in three quarters of the estates with the worst unemployment levels in Britain. It has not got better; it has got worse.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

More than half the first cohort on the Work programme are in work. Why does the right hon. Gentleman describe that as a failure?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman would do well to pay attention to the DWP’s own statistics and to the judgment of the Public Accounts Committee. They are categorical; they do not hem and haw or hedge their words; they make it clear that the Work programme today is worse than doing nothing. On the estates where unemployment is worst, the situation has got worse, not better since the Secretary of State took office. By any measure, that must be a failure.

That is why we say there has to be a different macro-economic policy. Unemployment is high because there are not enough jobs to go round. My constituency has the highest youth unemployment of any constituency in the country. There are 30 people chasing every single job. There are not enough jobs to go round, and we need a different plan for growth and jobs—an argument that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out with some power. We also need a different plan at the DWP. It is now Labour authorities and the Labour party nationally that are setting out the way forward for this Government. We have said that it would be wise to put a tax on bankers’ bonuses because we know we could use that money to get more than 100,000 young people back into work quickly. That is decisive action, which we hope to see from the Chancellor tomorrow. If anybody rejects an offer of a real job with real wages and real training, sure, perhaps they should face sanctions. But let us be clear: young people today deserve a real choice of a real job with real wages, but that is being denied them by this Government.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. If I have read the Library briefing correctly, the JSA claimant count in his constituency fell over the last year by 6.7%.

[Mr Byrne]

That is cold comfort to a constituency with the highest youth unemployment in Britain. Does the hon. Gentleman know what people at my local jobcentre say when I visit it? Can he guess? They say, “I wish this Government would bring back the future jobs fund because it was the best programme we ever ran.” What a shame his party cancelled it, and that is why we propose its restoration.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will in a moment, if the Secretary of State will allow me.

When we look around the country, we now see Labour councils leading the charge to get young people back into work. In Sheffield, they are looking at how to intervene better in schools to help prevent young people from becoming unemployed. In Wakefield, they are bringing together colleges and businesses in a new way to get people back to work. In Leeds, there are new programmes to help get young people back into work. In Manchester, there is now a UCAS-style clearing house to get people back into apprenticeships. In Bradford, there are now industrial centres of excellence that bring the council, colleges and young people together. In Glasgow, the Labour council is guaranteeing a job for any young person out of work for too long. In Wales, they are making the same kind of commitment. In Birmingham, the Labour council—my own authority—has brought together a coalition of the willing to make progress on youth unemployment. In Liverpool, there is now an apprenticeship training agency, set up by the council and a local college. In Sandwell, Newham and Cardiff, Labour councils, local colleges and business communities have set up job brokerages. That is the kind of decisive action the Secretary of State can learn from. Perhaps he will give a commitment to go and look at what I have seen first hand and incorporate it into his policy.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Youth unemployment is lower than when the previous Government left office and there are more people in work than ever before. He is extolling the virtues of our localisation agenda, and I congratulate him on that.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about a simple point. He has laid out for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and others why his party will, by and large, not vote against the Bill. In doing so, he has said constantly how much he opposes emergency legislation and how terrible it is. Will he confirm that under Labour, there were 12 cases of emergency legislation being brought through this House in a hurry? Is he not crying crocodile tears on that point?

[Mr Byrne]

No. The Secretary of State should set out the detailed individual circumstances of every piece of legislation that he has referred to. He knows as well as I do what underpinned them. The point, as well he knows, is that he is making retrospective, fast-track legislation that touches on rights of appeal and property rights, all because of the mistake that he and his Ministers made in 2011 in bodging the regulations so badly that the Court of Appeal has struck them down.

To conclude, the assurances that we have heard from the Minister this afternoon are extremely important. The safeguards for appeal rights that have been set out are vital to ensure that people who are hit by sanctions have a wide-ranging set of good causes that can trigger an appeal.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment.

First, ensuring that the appeal window of 13 months is preserved is crucial for people who are hit by sanctions. Secondly, as has been referred to by my hon. Friends, it is vital that there is an independent review of the sanctions regime. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will set out the questions that we believe need to be answered.

I have heard the Minister’s assurances this afternoon that there is no series of targets and that there are no league tables. We will hear further evidence on that point over the course of the debates in this House. I hope that the assurances that we have heard this afternoon withstand those tests.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that it is not only the low-paid, but the non-paid that Labour are not backing? By sitting on their hands, Labour Members are helping the Government to ensure that the people who are already being affected by the bedroom tax get no further support. It is worse than two bald men fighting over a comb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

It was the Labour party that opposed the bedroom tax when the Welfare Reform Bill went through this House, it is the Labour party that has consistently voted in opposition to the bedroom tax, and it is the Labour party that has forced the concessions out of the Government to protect foster parents and armed forces families.

In conclusion, it beggars belief that the Secretary of State has had to come before the House to fast-track retrospective legislation to fix a problem that he created when he got things wrong all those months and years ago. That is why it is so important that there is an independent Laidlaw-style review to get to the bottom of what went wrong. We need answers on how the Secretary of State has landed himself in this position. We need those answers to come before this House so that we can come to a judgment about whether he is still fit to be Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate.

We have heard powerful speeches this afternoon from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and good speeches from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). This is a day of acute embarrassment for the Government. They have bodged their regulations so badly that they have been struck down by the Court of Appeal, yet not once this afternoon have we heard a word of apology from the Minister for bringing forward retrospective legislation of this type on a timetable so fast that proper scrutiny is constrained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, not once have we heard even a word of contrition for the position they have put the House in.

Today’s debate has clarified one important point. The core of the Bill concerns the long-standing foundational power of the Department to issue sanctions. We think that the Department should, indeed, be equipped with such a power, but that is not to say for a moment that we subscribe to, or agree with, the programmes that it has built on those foundations. We heard from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that the programmes now in place, not least the mandatory work activity, are seriously flawed, are malfunctioning and are not getting people back to work, especially in those communities where unemployment is at its worst.

We will continue to argue that the Government’s back to work programmes need to be improved. Young people should not simply be confronted with the option of mandatory work activity and very little else. We do not believe that the Work programme is delivering. We believe that a better choice would be a jobs guarantee for young people and the long-term unemployed, and that the country could afford it if the Government had the bottle to introduce a tax on bankers’ bonuses and change the pension perks for the very richest. That would go a long way to delivering the kinds of changes that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark spoke about.

It is important that on the foundations with which we equip the DWP we build good, strong back to work programmes that get young people and the long-term unemployed back to work. We have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and other of my hon. Friends, including in interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), about the clear evidence that the sanctioning regime is malfunctioning. That is why the commitment to an independent review of the regime is so important. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, the system is clearly failing.

We will continue to argue that the review should be put in place, and when it is up and running, we will be leading the evidence gathering to ensure that the House is fully aware of what is going on. We will ensure that there is a clear and loud argument that the back to work programmes in this country should be better and properly financed, and that those who have the latitude to take part in them should be asked to contribute. We want to ensure that more people get back into jobs; that is why we are in the Labour party. That is the argument that we will take to the Government over the course of the next few days.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we will not stand by and watch the demonisation of the poor in this country. We will stand up for vulnerable people and for the things they need, and we will stand against the attacks now being perpetrated against them by this Government.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The sinner has repented on this occasion.

Let me be clear. I want the review to proceed as quickly as possible. It is in all our interests for it to do so. I am keen that we improve the quality of decision making on sanctions and that we ensure that they are applied consistently. The right hon. Member for East Ham was right to highlight the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there should be no targets, and that if there was evidence of targets being used at any jobcentre, we would stamp them out. We do not want targets; we want good quality decisions made consistently from jobcentre to jobcentre. I do not think targets have a role to play in that regime. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) laughs. Is he saying we should have targets? I suspect not.

[Mr Byrne]

I look forward to the evidence of the next few days.

[Mr Hoban]

Given that my right hon. Friend said that he would stop the practice, we would stop it again if it reappeared. We do not want to see it happening.

I want to pick up on some of the points raised in the 10 or 11 questions put by the right hon. Member for East Ham. We have published, and will publish annually, tables setting out the number of sanctions. The data for 2011-12 were published online on 15 August 2012, and we gave a breakdown of sanctions, so it is not correct to say that there is no information. There were 108,000 variable length sanctions for employment-related failures; 378,000 sanctions were of fixed length, which included 58,000 that were for not attending ESE—employment, skills and enterprise—regulation schemes, 55,000 for not complying with training requirements or for not carrying out a jobcentre’s direction or for a failure to participate in mandatory work activity.

The reason there is a range in the impact assessment is that we were trying to be helpful to the Committee. We used a combination of official statistics and an estimate based on management information to give Members an up to date figure of the numbers involved. The final numbers will be available when we publish the next official statistics. Having been a DWP Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we take the validation and verification of statistics seriously. These are official national statistics and they need to be published to appropriate quality. That is the basis for the numbers in the impact assessment.

Communication is really important, and we need to ensure that we get it right. We talked about some of the measures that we set out in the recent regulations to ensure clarity in universal credit. There is a challenge here. We want to ensure that communications between the Department and jobseekers are clear, whether they are oral communications between a personal adviser and a claimant, or items of correspondence. But I think there is a tension here. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said in her Second Reading speech that she felt that the notice we sent out was defective, and the courts said the letter should have contained more detail about the sanctions regime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say gently to the hon. Lady that Ministers have no responsibility for the Opposition’s use of terminology. It is better that we leave it there. There has been a very full exchange on that subject.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for briefing me and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on his plans for urgent legislation, about which his Department has commented in The Daily Telegraph this morning? Both he and I believe that sanctions are vital to give back-to-work programmes their bite. However, when he signed off the 2011 regulations that created sanctions for the Work programme, why did he not check that they were legally bullet proof?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the advice that we received made it very clear that the regulations would survive a challenge, and that was the view that we took. As he knows, the High Court upheld our position. It was the Court of Appeal that decided, on quite a technical line, to change that position. The position on human rights was upheld, as was the main point of our direction of travel.

[Mr Byrne]

I do not think that it is a technical challenge when three Court of Appeal judges unanimously quash the 2011 regulations because they are not in line with the law. That mistake puts in jeopardy about £100 million of sanctions that have been issued. I did not think that the Work programme could get any worse, but it has. We will support wise and sensible legislation that will fix the problem, but will the Secretary of State take personal responsibility and apologise for this mess, which may cost twice as much as the west coast main line fiasco?

Universal Credit

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

It is to the credit of the Secretary of State and the Government that, as we have seen so far today, the issue being debated is not whether we should try to introduce universal credit into the welfare equation. The level of the debate has been fascinating, and I commend the Chair of the Select Committee on her contribution. I was particularly taken by her succinct and well made observation that whichever political party brings in the change, there will be unforeseen consequences, and the issue is the Department’s ability to deal with those consequences. We cannot do much more about them—by their very nature they are unforeseen—but the House will rightly look to the Department to work as assiduously and quickly as possible, because they will affect people’s real lives.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). I have yet to agree with her on anything, but she touched on the subject of individual fraud. I do not wish to alarm her, but I calculate that the bank account running the universal credit system will be one of the largest in the world. I hope our security systems and advice are up to scratch, because that would be an expensive fraud for all of us. I am not making light of it, but individual applications may be a smaller part of the problem if our security advisers have taken care of that one. I am sure that they have and that there is nothing the Minister needs to lose sleep over.

It is to the credit of the House that, in discussing whether universal credit is a good idea, we have not entered into yah-boo politics. However, while the House rightly focuses on vulnerable citizens who may be caught up in the changes, it is important that we do not reduce the issue to a denominator that means we should not press ahead with them. We should all aspire to change, and not hold back because of a fear that smaller groups have the potential to lose out. Of course, they must not lose out as a result of some of the issues I will come on to talk about.

It is important that we distinguish between vulnerable people and those who presently do not have skills. I am not sure that someone who cannot complete an online form is vulnerable, but I argue that they are unskilled. Our goal surely must be for 100% of benefit claimants to be able to claim online, notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s self-declared inability to do so, something I understand perfectly and empathise with. It must be our goal. It would be more economical and user-friendly once people are conversant with it.

In my constituency, if I accept the statistics suggested for those unable to complete a claim online, 600 out of 3,500 claimants may not be able to do so. However, I would rather find a system that suits the vast majority of people, and then work hard to bring others up to scratch. It is good to see the use of computers and advice being available in jobcentres. Three computers in each jobcentre may not be enough—although I suspect we will probably have more in areas of greater need, and fewer in areas with less need—and it is right that the telephone service will be in place for a considerable time. However, I want us to aspire to better systems and not be held back. It is crucial to seek to get everyone online not just to meet the needs of universal credit, but for the development of personal skills. We cannot run from the digital age. It is here and we will all have to use it whether we like it or not. Whether we are luddites or reformers, it is here and that development must be one of the fringe benefits of what we are trying to do.

On direct payments to landlords, my understanding—I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong—is that under the Government’s pilots the majority of people are meeting their rent payments in full and on time. My understanding is that in the first four months, from more than 6,000 social tenants who were paid their housing benefit directly, rent collection rates stood at 92%. If that is accurate, it indicates that the pilots are travelling in the right direction. Of course, that means 8% are not doing well. However, I support the view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who argued that we will be able to invest more time to bring that 8%—if that is what the figure turns out to be—the care and attention they need. I recognise the cynicism mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, but that is what we are here to deal with. We should not allow ourselves to repeat the mistakes of the past. We should learn from the past and be able to put extra time and resource into looking after those people so that they become more self-reliant.

On self-reliance, in the past decade or 12 years or so, approximately 2 million children were brought up in households where no one was working. No Government ever set out to achieve such a thing; it has happened for a number of reasons. However, it has contributed enormously to creating a state of mind whereby so many people look at what they cannot do, as opposed to what they might aspire to do. From a life of dependency, I am sure that they would prefer to move to a life of independence. I welcome the inherent measures in universal credit and the wider welfare reforms, because they enable people to move towards taking responsibility for improving their own lives, finances and skill sets. The state will never be able to do everything for everyone—that philosophy is wrong. We have almost empowered a generation to believe that the state will provide them with an answer to their problems. That is not the case in the real world—we know that. I therefore welcome the measures warmly, as they will provide a step-change for people towards independence and taking more control over their lives.

I listen carefully to the members of the Select Committee, who have been extremely thoughtful in discussing potential areas of weakness. As a constituency MP, like all of us in this House, I inevitably attract people who are caught up in grey areas. We have a duty—indeed, a passion—to help advise Government where those grey areas are and to make recommendations for changes. Sometimes we fight the bureaucracy that can so often stifle individuals, many of them vulnerable, into almost giving up hope of receiving the help that we have decided they deserve. I fully anticipate that there will still be work to do, but I engage constructively in that process, because I recognise that any system that is introduced is bound to create a grey area in which some people will be trapped. However, that is not a reason not to proceed; it is simply a reason to be flexible and to move forward, advise and gain consent to deal with those issues.

I conclude by saying that the House is at its best when it is arguing about detail and trying to highlight potential flaws. I welcome the cross-Chamber support for the big idea of this reform. The shadow Secretary of State has been characteristically robust on many occasions, and I am sure he is being so on Twitter right now. Some of his public remarks predicting complete doom and gloom for the system are perhaps uncharacteristic, because the mood of the House seems to be, quite sensibly, “We are behind this. The Government may not have got everything right and we will watch them on that score.” That is probably the right way to go and I hope that he genuinely believes that this is the right thing to do.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we support this idea in principle, but we have grave and growing concerns about implementation. He will have seen reports in The Guardian that prompt questions about whether there are IT personnel or contractors at Accenture, Atos Origin, Oracle, Red Hat, CACI or IBM UK who have been stepped down, or in any way notified by the Department, that they are to “suspend work”. We hope the Minister will be able to return that in his remarks.

[Nick de Bois]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful that someone has brought a voice to the voiceless in this debate. I have heard nothing about the 250,000 people shamefully left in overcrowded accommodation by the last Government and the nearly 5 million men, women and children on housing waiting lists up and down the land. Their voice deserves to be heard, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s comments about fairness. I notice that the Conservative literature in Eastleigh says that the Liberal Democrats oppose further changes to benefits that would, they claim, make our welfare system fairer. Is he 100% sure that this measure will deliver the savings set out by the Chancellor? Yes or no.

[Steve Webb]

Our impact assessment is our best estimate based on what we expect the impact of the policy to be. That is all any Department ever produces. We believe that it is a robust best estimate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

We know that the housing benefit bill doubled in a decade—up 50% in real terms—and that Labour did nothing to tackle it. With the collapse in house building under the last Government, it is not surprising that private rents, and as a result housing benefit bills, soared.

[Mr Byrne]

I know that the Minister does not want to deliberately mislead the House, so I know that he will stand up now, correct the record and say that Labour introduced the local housing allowance and limits on housing benefit, and acknowledge that our manifesto set out plans for a cap on benefits, including housing benefit.

[Steve Webb]

That is very interesting. The right hon. Gentleman and his party were in office for 13 years and decided in their 2010 manifesto—the manifesto to which he just referred—to do something to control housing benefit. In office, they do not do it, but as they are heading out of government, they promise to do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Perhaps I could make a little more progress.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—[Interruption.] Sorry to disturb her—referred to private sector tenants and the relative position of social housing tenants. We spend more housing benefit on social housing tenants than on private sector tenants and we pay for their rent subsidy, so it is wrong to say that we subsidise private tenants more than we do social housing tenants. That is simply wrong. But if someone is living in private rented accommodation, broadly speaking we do not allow them an extra bedroom. Why, then, is it fair to have two houses next door to each other, one of which is privately rented and the other socially rented, and give a spare bedroom to the person in social accommodation, who also benefits from subsidised rent, but not to the person in the private rented accommodation?

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. Why does he not tell the House the whole story and admit that the DWP has lost its case in the Court of Appeal and that its policy of discriminating against disabled people and not giving them any kind of special treatment has been struck down by the courts? That is why his Department has applied to the Supreme Court to have it looked at again. Why is he taking that to appeal and why will he not come clean to the House about how his policy is suffering at the hands of the courts because it is wrong?

[Steve Webb]

The case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is in the courts now—before this policy has been implemented—so it is not specifically about this policy, but about a broader issue concerning the private rented sector. So it is a challenge to the regulations that his party was responsible for.

I will say more in a moment about the specific way in which we are planning to address the position of disabled people, because that is an important issue. Roughly two thirds of all social tenants have a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, based on the measure used in our impact assessment. That is a similar proportion to those affected by this measure, so it is not disproportionate. If we look at the stock of social tenants, we inevitably find that about two thirds of them are in that category, and that is true of this specific measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

We got the right one, as it were.

We are all in favour of incentives to encourage people to make better use of the housing stock, and I welcome any measures the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) took to that effect, but they have not worked. We have 1 million spare bedrooms among people on housing benefit. The changes have simply not worked on the necessary scale—

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I have given way three times to the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to make further progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I think that most Opposition Members will have been pretty disappointed by what the Minister has said. A range of important arguments have been advanced this afternoon, but they have received no answers whatsoever.

Let me begin by congratulating the Green party, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party on tabling the motion. We support it, and we will support it in the Division Lobby later today. Since the Welfare Reform Act 2012 first saw the light of day, we have warned of the flaws that have loomed large this afternoon. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) who first warned that the people who will be hit by the Act have nowhere to hide and that they will just have to pay up, and it was my noble Friend Lord McKenzie who said in the other place that the discretionary housing fund would nowhere near cover the costs and consequences of this policy. I am afraid that everything we have heard this afternoon merely confirms what they have said. That is why through Divisions in the Chamber and in Committee here and in the other place we have tried to put in place safeguards which would have stopped the horror show that will begin in April.

As the weeks have gone by, my colleagues have clearly set out the faults and flaws in glorious 3D Technicolor. First, we learned that someone who is handed a 12-month sentence will be exempt from this policy. I have here a list of offences which attracted a sentence of less than 12 months in 2011. It includes some 43 people who were convicted of threat or conspiracy to murder, who will be exempt. There are also 273 people convicted of sexual offences; they, too, will be exempt. Yet mothers of members of the armed forces who are currently out there serving, like Alison Huggan—the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop)—will be hit, and the Minister defended this policy this afternoon.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I know the right hon. Gentleman would never want to unwittingly mislead the House. He has said that if someone is convicted, they will be exempt. They are not exempt. Only those on remand will be exempt. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to correct the record?

[Mr Byrne]

Well, I am sure the House will draw great comfort from the fact that people on remand for threats to murder, sexual offences, burglary, robbery and public disorder will—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I am very happy to take the Secretary of State’s correction, but—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Secretary of State, you cannot be standing up at the same time as the Member who has the Floor. I am sure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is willing to give way. You should both have a little patience with each other. We do not want to end up bickering across the Dispatch Box, do we? Is Liam Byrne giving way?

[Mr Byrne]

I am very happy to give way, but let me tell the Secretary of State that the House will draw little comfort from the fact that people on remand for these offences will still be exempt from this policy.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I just want to establish one thing: the right hon. Gentleman is now changing his party’s legal policy. It has been a very good principle in this country down through the ages that people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty before they are proven innocent. The reality is that we stick within the existing strictures. The right hon. Gentleman has every right to oppose this measure, but he is now saying that as soon as someone is accused of a crime, they should immediately be treated as if they are guilty.

[Mr Byrne]

The Secretary of State cannot defend the fact that families of serving soldiers will be hit by this policy while those on remand and accused of the most serious offences we can imagine will not be hit by it. I do not think that the Secretary of State, of all people, will want to defend that. He should be speaking to his colleagues the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister, who I understand is the Chair of the Sub-Committee on the Armed Forces Covenant, and he should be bringing to this House safeguards for the families of armed personnel out on service, should he not? As he remains in his place, it is clear that he is not going to bring forward those safeguards for the families of people serving on the front line. The House will be disappointed to have observed that.

Foster parents will also be hurt. Again, we heard nothing from the Minister today about how foster parent families are going to be helped. [Interruption.] I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and he said nothing today that countermands what he sent out in a recent circular, which says:

“a household that has an extra room for a current or potential foster child will be treated as under-occupying.”

Families in that position will be hit, therefore. [Interruption.] We then hear that under universal credit a couple where someone is a pensioner and someone is not will also be hit. [Interruption.]

Over all this, of course, looms the truth that two-thirds of the people hit by this bedroom tax will be disabled. [Interruption.] The Minister has been pleading from a sedentary position that the discretionary housing payment will somehow help. He will, no doubt, have seen the National Housing Federation research that found that 200,000 people who will be hit by this bedroom tax are on disability living allowance. The NHF estimates that if we spent all the DHP money helping those people, it would help 73,000 people, so there would be 127,000 people in receipt of DLA who would get absolutely no help whatever. Of course, that would leave nothing for foster parents either. I am afraid that the Minister cannot simply plead that the DHP is of some help to foster parents, those who are disabled and people whose houses have been adapted. The truth is very different, and he has been found out this afternoon.

[Andy Sawford]

Much has been said about particular groups who will be hit by this policy and my right hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on disabled people and foster families. There are also, however, people like my constituent Hayley Duncan, who has two boys aged one and 13 who are now expected to share the same bedroom. I can honestly say I would not ask two children of mine of such different ages to share the same bedroom. Does my right hon. Friend think this is right? Is there hypocrisy here?

[Mr Byrne]

Of course there is. The Minister, unlike his party colleague the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), did not resile from his support for a whopping great tax cut for millionaires at the same time as Hayley Duncan and her children are being hit by this bedroom tax.

This is a policy that is unique in its cruelty. It sets out to tackle the problem of under-occupancy, and the Minister made much of the 1 million spare bedrooms he wants somehow to bring on to the housing market. As he knows, however, the policy will only save the money chalked up in the Treasury scorecard if it fails. That is the reality. About £490 million is earmarked to be saved by this policy over the course of this year, but it will be saved only if 660,000 households are hit for £14 a week for 52 weeks a year. That is how those savings will be delivered. This is not about bringing spare bedrooms on to the market; it is about hurting vulnerable people and asking them to pay extra.

What is particularly troubling to many Opposition Members is the Minister’s refusal to acknowledge that in many parts of the country there will simply not be the smaller houses for people to move into. Again the NHF has been very clear about that. In large parts of the country there is simply not the housing stock for people hit by this tax to move into. The Government have removed any shelter where vulnerable people can take cover before opening fire. This is a policy of unique cruelty, therefore. The Government are not seeking to solve under-occupancy. Instead, they are simply seeking to make the poorest and most vulnerable even poorer. As the Secretary of State once cared about poverty, perhaps he would like to justify that fact?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the following two important points? Under the Labour Government’s local housing allowance changes, the situation for children of the same sex in respect of the size criteria was exactly the same as we are now introducing in the social sector. Why is it good for one but not for the other? Secondly, he is crowing about the number of social houses in existence, but why did the last Labour Government leave the building programme at the lowest level since the 1920s?

[Mr Byrne]

Like me, the Secretary of State will have followed the recent remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Answer the question.

[Mr Byrne]

I am answering the question. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

“If I’m going to be sort of self-critical, there was this reduction in capital spending when we came into the coalition government…But I think we’ve all realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”

But what has happened in the past couple of years? What has happened even in the past year? For the last year for which records are available, the number of housing starts in this country has fallen by 11%. That is the reality of what this Government have delivered.

This policy is not simply a cruel punishment; it is a cruel and unusual punishment, because it is not normal—it is not usual in a modern, advanced and civilised country—to reward the rich in quite the way this Government are proposing while punishing the poor. It beggars belief that next month—the month in which those on £1 million a year will get a £2,000-a-week tax cut—those with a spare bedroom will face a £14-a-week rent rise. In what world is that fair or normal and usual? It is only in a Tory world, defended by a Liberal Democrat.

[Mr Raynsford]

As some very misleading comments about housing have been made by those on the Government Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend confirm that in 2007, the last year before the recession, the net additions to the housing stock in this country numbered 207,000? The current Government have presided over a collapse, and fewer than 100,000 new homes were started last year. That is their shocking record and they should not pretend otherwise.

[Mr Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Of course, the Labour party is proposing to have a tax on bankers’ bonuses in order to release £1.3 billion for new housing and to spend the 4G licence proceeds on building homes. That is in sharp contrast to the sob story from the Deputy Prime Minister lamenting the fact that the Government cut capital spending too far and too fast.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the savings that the Government anticipate and project are gross savings, not net savings? That is because many local authorities will end up with voids without rents and will make losses, so they will not be able to do their repairs, at a time when private sector rents will be pressed up by excess demand, giving returns on buy-to-lets to the private rented sector and increasing housing benefit costs. This does not add up at all.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State may truly believe that this policy will save his Department £490 million a year, but his Minister of State was rather less than forthcoming earlier on swearing that that would be the figure. The Secretary of State may genuinely believe that this policy will save £2 billion over the forecast period. If he does genuinely believe that it will save the money set out by the Treasury in Budgets gone by, he is deluding himself, because the evidence is staring him in the face: this policy will cost more than it saves.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I stand by our assessments. Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise for what was done in Labour’s 13 years? The current Government have increased the level of social house building by 18% on what we inherited; it had collapsed under Labour. Will he apologise and explain to the nationalists that one reason why we are in this predicament is that house building collapsed under his Government?

[Mr Byrne]

House building did not collapse. In the final years of our Government we brought forward serious new investment for housing, and it is the Labour party that is proposing serious investment in social housing and new housing today. That position seems to be shared by the Deputy Prime Minister, but his Government are presiding over an 11% collapse in the number of houses being built.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinarily hypocritical for the Secretary of State to be talking about investing in housing when—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will withdraw it, and I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is extraordinary for the Secretary of State to be talking about this measure when he is putting many of our housing associations and registered social landlords at risk. Moody’s downgraded housing associations’ credit ratings this week, which means that they are not going to be able to invest either in the properties they have or in building new ones, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) just said.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is right. We have the National Housing Federation to thank for estimates on the amount of arrears, which housing associations now say are going to grow. Some estimates I have seen show that housing associations face up to a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of arrears because of this policy and other changes the Secretary of State is making. At a time when the country’s debt rating has been downgraded, that will make things incredibly difficult for housing associations in delivering on future social housing builds. The bedroom tax will only make the situation worse.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has slightly moved on from the point he was making about the so-called millionaires give-away, but it is a certainty that Opposition Members will come back to it repeatedly. Will he explain, as he is particularly well placed to do so having been in the Treasury, why it was in only the last 37 days of the Labour Government that any measures were taken to increase taxes on the richest people in this country? If he is going to refer to this issue continually, he should, being a former Treasury Minister, be prepared to explain why that was the case.

[Mr Byrne]

I am happy to do so. It will not have escaped the hon. Lady’s notice that today’s fiscal circumstances are somewhat different from those of the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. She supports—[Interruption.] I will answer her question just as soon as the Government Front Benchers simmer down slightly. The truth is that her Government have delivered a double-dip recession and perhaps worse; they have just presided over a downgrade in the nation’s debt rating; and growth has been flatlining for the past couple of years, which has made the deficit position far worse. This Government are going to borrow more in this Parliament than Labour did in 13 years, so the question now has to be: how is the pain of paying down the deficit to be shared? Labour has always said that there has to be a mixture of growth and sensible public spending cuts—that is how to get the deficit down. What we should not be doing is having a £3 billion tax give-away for Britain’s richest citizens while asking 660,000 people to pay an extra £14 a week. How would she justify that to her constituents?

[Jane Ellison]

That is just not good enough from the right hon. Gentleman. The financial crash happened in 2008 and, by independent agreement, there was already a structural deficit at that time. In order not to bequeath an ever-growing structural deficit and rising debt to another incoming Labour Government or, as it turned out, this coalition Government, no action was taken in the immediate aftermath of the financial crash. Surely he cannot justify that fact.

[Mr Byrne]

If we are to go back over the history, I should say that, as the hon. Lady will know, at that time the Conservative party supported Labour’s spending limits—that was the announcement made by the then shadow Chancellor at the party conference. The question that confronts the country now is: how do we bring the deficit down? Once upon a time, we were told that we were “all in it together” but we now know that the truth is quite the opposite. Once upon a time, the Chancellor said that he was not going to balance the books on the backs of the poor, but now we know the truth—he absolutely is balancing the books on the backs of the poor, starting with £14 a week extra from 660,000 people.

The evidence that this policy is going to cost more than it saves is now staring the Secretary of State in the face, just as I can see it clearly, too. He will have read the reports from all over the country—[Interruption.] Perhaps he will confirm this from a sedentary position. Like me, he will have read the reports from all over the country that have gone to cabinet meetings setting out the impact of his changes to communities up and down the country. The reports could not be clearer and they confirm the substance of the letter leaked by the private secretary to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that up to 20,000 people will be made homeless as a result of these changes, and that does not include the impact of the benefit cut.

This policy affects councils like Hull city council, which says that 4,700 tenants will be hit, yet in Hull there are just 73 one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties available to let. There is a shortfall of 4,700 properties for tenants. If they move into the private rented sector or to become homeless, that will cost the taxpayer a fortune. This policy will cost more than it saves, as has been powerfully argued today, and I am not surprised that the Minister of State is no longer prepared to swear by the savings that this policy is supposed to deliver.

Here we have a Department that is at the height of its powers. It has brought us a Work programme that is worse than doing nothing, it has presided over a universal credit system that I understand is on the brink of collapsing into chaos, and now we have a policy that will cost more than it saves. Why? Because the Secretary of State has been rolled over by a downgraded Chancellor and has not had the strength to resist him.

We now have the worst of all worlds. We have a Department bedevilled by an excess of stupidity and an absence of spine. The cost is paid not by the Members on the Government Front Bench but by the 1 million children who will be plunged into poverty by the Secretary of State’s Department and the 3.4 million disabled people who will be hit by his strivers tax. He should instead be bringing to this House proposals that would genuinely bring down the welfare bill by getting more people into work. We now have nearly 1 million young people out of work and nearly 1 million people out of work long term, and that is costing us a fortune. He knows full well that the housing benefit bill is set to rise by £8 billion over the course of this Parliament because of his failure to get people back into jobs.

That is why the Secretary of State should be arguing. He should find some spine and tell the Chancellor that it is about time we had a tax on bankers’ bonuses to build new homes and get people into work. If we said to people in this country that they could not spend more than two years on the dole and that at that stage they had to work, that would be a proper plan for welfare reform and for welfare to work. It would be a real alternative to this policy, which is a cruel and unusual punishment from a cruel and useless Government.

Pensions and Social Security

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

No, I want to make some progress.

The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to the triple lock and the increase of 2.5% over inflation, compared with 2.2%, as derisory. I remind him that the extra 0.3% cost the taxpayer £150 million. I remember the funny-money days of Labour when £150 million was considered a mere rounding error. He dismisses it as derisory. When his party was in office, it was borrowing £150 billion a year, so I appreciate that for him £150 million is small change, but I still have the naive feeling that that amount is a lot of money. He and others derided our triple lock as though it were a trifle and of no consequence, but had Labour implemented the triple lock between 1997 and now, we would be spending an additional £3 billion on the state pension. So if Labour had applied the triple lock that he derides as inconsequential throughout their term in office, we would be spending £3 billion a year more on pensions. But perhaps he thinks that that sum is derisory, and a frippery, as well.

We have also been hearing about strivers. This is the classic dog-whistle politics of the Opposition. They accuse us of trying to divide people, yet they suddenly divide people—[Interruption.] It is not our side that has used that language.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It was your Prime Minister.

[Steve Webb]

The Opposition have tried to divide people into “strivers” and “somebody else”. I am not sure who the “somebody else” is—a non-striver, perhaps. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is shouting out, but he is the man who said in his conference speech that Labour was on the side of the strivers, not the shirkers. We know who uses that language.

Why is it necessary to have the fiscal consolidation? It is because of the Labour party’s debts. There was £150 billion of borrowing in the final year of the last Labour Government. Labour takes no responsibility for that but, had the previous Chancellor’s plans been put into operation, it would have had to implement substantial spending cuts on public sector pay—which it has finally now agreed—and on benefits. Have we heard a single suggestion from the Opposition today on how they would make savings? They simply oppose every cut, pretend to be on the side of the poor, and never accept responsibility for how we got into this mess in the first place.