Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether it is in order for the Minister to say that she is not going to answer a question because she thinks that the answer would be misleading? Surely it is for Members of the House to determine what information they want and for Ministers to provide that information.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The responsibility to answer a question lies with the Minister. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has been tenacious in holding the Minister to account. That is the role of Members: to hold Ministers and Departments to account. I am sure that that will continue if he does not get the answer today.

[Esther McVey]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is why we are having this debate today. It is not me who is—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

An answer that was given a year and a half ago was misleading. If that is the case, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister who gave that misleading answer to come to the House at the first opportunity, as is the convention, to correct the information? As far as I am aware, there has been no correction whatever. I ask you to take this matter up, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a point of procedure with the relevant Department.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What we need to do is to get to the end of the debate. The point is well made and it has been taken on board.

[Esther McVey]

I do not have my glasses on at the moment. It is John McDonnell on the Opposition Benches, is it not? [Interruption.] It is. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was standing up to pass comment on something else, now that it is Christmas—the time when people should be able to stand up and apologise—or, as he said he would in front of the House, to invite me for a cup of tea—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order, everybody! Let us have a little bit of Christmas spirit. The Minister must give way when there is a point of order.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Allegations have been made here that have been responded to previously. If the right hon. Lady is raising matters in relation to me, I am quite happy to respond to them if she gives way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We are not going to get into that. It is Christmas, and this is the final debate before the recess, so we ought to take on board where we are and be careful about the comments that are made.

[Esther McVey]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman said that he would make a phone call to speak to me about this matter, I await the phone call—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not want this debate to deteriorate any further. It is an important debate, and I want us to stick to the facts. I do not want any more personal attacks on either side of the Chamber. I want to move forward.

[Esther McVey]

As I said to the right hon. Member for East Ham, the point is not whether I was withholding the information. The Department looked at the information that had been handed out and felt that it was not robust. It was not comfortable handing it out because it was neither reliable nor accurate, and that was why the subsequent answers were given in a series of letters and parliamentary answers. I have given the exact reply that has been deemed correct, because we obviously want the Department and the House to give out accurate information.

Question put and agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I represent a significant number of providers in my constituency, including Legal and General, Partnership and Just Retirement, while Fidelity is also in this market to a degree. I am very concerned about the levy that is coming in to pay for the guidance, and about the difference between the £20 million that the Government have set aside to begin funding the guidance and the reality of what realistic guidance actually requires. If the Minister or I wanted an evaluation of our pensions for the purposes of a court—for divorce, for example—the amount of work required would cost about £2,000. There are 500,000 people waiting for and needing guidance. It will be £1 billion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might be better off making his point in two interventions, because otherwise he will have made his speech, and I am sure that the Minister will not remember it all.

[Steve Webb]

Let me make a start, and I will then be happy to give way again. To be clear, the £20 million is not an estimate of the annual recurring cost of providing guidance; it is a one-off, seedcorn, getting-the-thing-going fund. For example, if we need to set up websites, produce literature and create infrastructure, the £20 million will enable us to do so. That may involve organisations such as the Pensions Advisory Service and the Money Advice Service, and it may involve Government spending. The first point is that it is about getting things going; it is not our estimate of the recurring cost of guidance.

The second point is that there is clearly a world of difference between a guidance conversion to get people to base camp—enabling them to understand concepts and helping them to know where to go for further information and advice—and a sophisticated, individualised, tailored piece of independent financial advice recommending products. There is a whole spectrum, and the guidance is very much at not the “cheap”, which is the wrong word, but the budget end of that scale.

I assure my hon. Friend that we do not envisage a levy on the financial services industry to pay for full-blown, regulated, independent, tailored financial advice. The guidance will not be like that, but it will certainly be cost-efficient. Although we will honour the Chancellor’s pledge for face-to-face guidance when people want it, we anticipate that many people will want telephone conversations, websites and all the rest of it, much of which is substantially cheaper than the very expensive sort of advice he mentioned.

Universal Credit

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Lady is a fine contributor to our Select Committee and adds a lot of intellectual rigour and brings a lot from her previous background. My challenge is: would it not be lovely if we could control the media? She is absolutely right, I am sure, that some inappropriate things have been said by the wrong people, but when it comes to who said what and whether what is reported in the press is true, I find it a very hard leap of faith to make to accept her other point. I do not believe that any member of the Government would wantonly wish to put out any message in the way that she describes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has already had 14 minutes. Let somebody else in—we need short interventions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Language such as that about “shirkers” and “scroungers” has been used in the House by Ministers, and I reiterate that I find this deeply offensive.

If we consider welfare reforms in the round, we can see that there have been huge errors in how they have been delivered. If we consider them in the context of other reforms to the welfare state, we can see that we are experiencing a decimation of the welfare system that was set up after the second world war, with people who are sick and disabled through no fault of their own increasingly being denied access to a basic standard of living. In addition, the changes to access to health care and to justice are also affecting benefit claimants and because of the changes there has been a 20% reduction in the number of benefit claimants whose appeals are successful. We need to look at the situation in the round. I find it disappointing that a debate such as this is not seen in the context of everything else that is going on.

On the implementation of universal credit, I do not understand how the Secretary of State can still be in a job. Mistakes and errors have cost hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. That has been accompanied by cover-up and claims that the system has been reset.

I endorse all the positive comments that have been made about the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). She is a fantastic Chair, always allowing people to engage and giving them the opportunity to speak, but she has been shown such disrespect. If anybody has not seen how the Secretary of State behaved in that Select Committee meeting in February, I invite them to watch it. It was a disgrace.

Work Capability Assessments

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I should like to make some progress first, not least because I want to congratulate the hon. Lady a little more. We have plenty of time, after all—with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister is all heart.

[Mike Penning]

Perhaps, on that note—with all heart— I will give way.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I suggest that Members take up to 10 minutes, because of the number of speakers in the next debate as well?

Quality Workplace Pensions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is that these changes have a number of knock-on effects within our Department and the Department of Health. Of course, we will make sure that the spirit of the Chancellor’s announcement is carefully reflected in the way Departments carry on. These flexibilities do not come in for another year, so we still have time to work through detail of the sort that he properly raises.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last, but certainly not least, the voice of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland—Tom Blenkinsop.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I find the Minister’s statement fascinating given that he said only recently that putting a cap on pensions was like trying to put

“a price cap on a tin of baked beans”.

I wonder whether he read this in yesterday’s Financial Times:

“Labour led the way with criticism of the annuities market and high opaque fees on pensions, long before the coalition took action.”

Would he care to comment on that very good article?

amendment of the law

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Listening to the Chancellor and then turning to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Budget is like being seduced by “Fifty Shades of Grey” only to be brought down to earth by a harsh and unrelenting textbook on morality and sexual ethics. Leaving aside all the election giveaways, the truth is that the underlying economics of the Budget are truly awful.

The economy is still, after four years of austerity, 1.5% smaller than it was in 2008, while the US economy is 5% larger. To put it another way, the UK economy is today 14% smaller than it would have been if growth had continued in the way already being achieved in 2010, when the then Labour Chancellor’s economic stimulus produced 2.4% growth over 12 months up to the third quarter of 2010. As a result of this Chancellor’s about-turn, in favour of fiscal consolidation and austerity, the UK has lost output totalling £210 billion. That is completely gone for ever, down the drain and irrecoverable, and it is equal to one-seventh of Britain’s entire GDP.

Even the deficit reduction, which was supposed to be the aim of the exercise, has worked disastrously. The Chancellor inherited a deficit of £149 billion and pledged to reduce it by £60 billion now and £20 billion next year. In fact, the deficit is projected to be £108 billion this year—nearly double what he promised.

Even more serious is that the Chancellor predicts a strong and lasting recovery, but the OBR believes that this so-called recovery is built on sand. Unemployment and spare capacity have fallen so quickly that the OBR thinks there is very little scope for rapid growth beyond this current year. Hence, it has cut its growth forecast for next year from 2.7% to 2.3%. That is a very ominous forecast. If the economy is still below the output level of 2008 and unemployment is still 2.4 million, the premature petering out of growth will speak volumes. The OBR also says that, given the current policies, Britain will continue to lose export share steadily over the next five years, although it already has the biggest deficit in traded manufactured goods in its history, at £110 billion 7% of GDP—and rising.

The whole honest OBR scenario is grim. The public finances are still terrible, none of the components for sustainable growth is present, the upswing is largely dependent on excessive consumer borrowing and yet another asset-price bubble boom and bust, and the recovery—such as it is—is expected to fade when it has hardly begun. One has to ask, almost unbelievingly, how the Chancellor could have got it so unutterably wrong.

Part of the answer, I think, is that the Chancellor seems to have genuinely believed, at least for the first two years, the dogma of expansionary fiscal contraction. That is the idea that the less a Government spend, the faster the economy will grow, because the public sector will no longer crowd out the private sector, which will then have the space in which to grow. Well, it is all right to believe that if you are a first-year economic student, but to believe it when you have the power to trash the British economy for three years—as the Chancellor has, in fact, done—is quite another thing. The theory is economic illiteracy, and we have suffered that for two to three years.

What prompts the private sector to invest is obviously the prospect of future demand, and hence the prospect of future profits. When the economy is stagnant or contracting, what incentive have private companies to invest at all? That, of course, is precisely why business investment today is completely flat—20% below the pre-crash level—and what does that tell us? What it tells us is that business itself does not actually believe in this recovery either.

But there is another explanation for all this folly, namely that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are first and foremost ideologues, obsessed with the idea of shrinking the state to the smallest size they can get away with via the privatisation and outsourcing of everything that moves. For them—as opposed to all the people about whom Opposition Members have been talking—austerity was not a painful instrument of reform so much as a heaven-sent gift enabling them to realise their deepest prejudices. That is why, although the policy clearly is not working, the Chancellor is committed to continuing it, and indeed intensifying it, into the next Parliament.

So what should be done? I think it is obvious that what Britain urgently needs is a big and sustained increase in investment, which can only come—at least in the first instance—from the public sector, as the private sector, like the OBR, regards the recovery as far too fragile and risky. At today’s interest rates, the Chancellor could launch, at a cost of only £150 million a year, a major £30 billion drive of investment in manufacturing, public services and job creation which would bring the deficit down much faster, would shrink the dole queues—which are currently costing £19 billion a year—and would be sustainable. He could even finance it at no cost in public borrowing at all—by targeting a tranche of quantitative easing directly at manufacturing rather than the banks, by instructing the publicly owned banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, to prioritise their lending on British industry and not on overseas speculation, or by taxing the super-rich, who have monopolised more than 70% of the income gained since 2008, and, over the same period, increased their wealth by some—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

No; I am going to make some progress.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way and persistence will not help.

[Danny Alexander]

I have quite a few more things to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have less than three minutes in which to say them.

The rise in the personal allowance is not just a reward for hard work, but an incentive for hard work, as are the substantial changes that we have made on child care in the Budget. Those changes mean that we are getting more people into work and that people are keeping more of what they earn.

We have taken measures to incentivise businesses to invest, such as enhancing capital allowances. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who pushed hard for those changes. They will make a serious difference to business investment in this country.

To conclude, this is a Government with a long-term economic plan, and they are an Opposition without any plan at all. For businesses, we have doubled the tax relief on new plant and equipment, while they are frightening off the investors whom we need to invest in the energy to power those machines. They will vote against the cut in corporation tax and confirm that the Labour party is the anti-business party in this House. For working people, we have lifted the personal tax allowance even further than we promised in our election manifesto. While they talk about a 10p rate, we have lifted the personal allowance to £10,500. For pensioners, we have delivered a triple lock, the largest cash rise in the basic state pension in a generation and the greatest pensions liberation in a century. In their time in office, they delivered a paltry 75p rise in the basic state pension.

Some people have referred to this as the Lamborghini Budget. That may well be so, because there is one person in this Chamber who has shown that he can out-accelerate a Lamborghini. That is the shadow Chancellor in retreating from his predictions on the economy, such as the 1 million jobs that were never lost and the triple dip that never came.

Pensions Strategy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

Gladly. My hon. Friend is quite right. The Opposition have asked, “Where are the measures for savers in the Budget? How does it help savers?” We have already gone through a list, and he has kindly added another element, which is the abolition of the 10p tax rate. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, when this Government abolish a 10p tax rate, we take it to zero, not double it as others have done.

BILL PRESENTED

Wales Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary David Jones, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alistair Carmichael, Secretary Theresa Villiers, Danny Alexander, Mr David Gauke and Stephen Crabb, presented a Bill to make provision about elections to and membership of the National Assembly for Wales; to make provision about the Welsh Assembly Government; to make provision about the setting by the Assembly of a rate of income tax to be paid by Welsh taxpayers and about the devolution of taxation powers to the Assembly; to make related amendments to Part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998; to make provision about borrowing by the Welsh Ministers; to make miscellaneous amendments in the law relating to Wales; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 186) with explanatory notes (Bill 186-EN).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to the main business of the day, but may I ask for brevity? There are 30 Members down to speak, so I also make that appeal to Front Bench speakers.

Ways and Means

Pensions Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 3, 12, 13 and 19 to 27.

[Steve Webb]

Following that brief moment of disagreement with their lordships, I am pleased to say that we encourage the House to agree with all other Lords amendments to the Bill. Some amendments in this group were initiated by the Government all on their own, while others are constructive amendments that we tabled in response to concerns raised by noble Lords and others. That shows our willingness to improve the Bill when we think that valid arguments have been made.

Lords amendments 19 and 21 will affect the spouses of service personnel. In the context of our motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1, which was tabled by Baroness Hollis, it is appropriate to say that Lords amendments 19 and 21 respond to a concern that she helpfully raised during the Commons Public Bill Committee’s oral evidence sessions about the position, under the single-tier state pension, of wives of service personnel who have served overseas.

Lords amendment 21 places a duty on the Secretary of State to legislate for a new retrospective national insurance credit for spouses and civil partners of armed forces personnel who accompanied their partner on postings outside the UK from 1975-76 onwards. We promised to think about the matter as long ago as last June—have we really been considering the Bill for that long?—after it was raised in our oral evidence sessions. As we know, the single-tier pension is essentially based on one’s own record of national insurance contributions and credits, rather than a derived entitlement from a partner. However, that creates a problem for women who were posted overseas with their husband and, for entirely legitimate reasons—because, say, they did not speak the language of the country they were in—were unable to work, or could not build up national insurance rights because of their role supporting their husband.

It is right that we take action for that group. There is a cross-Government commitment in the armed forces covenant to removing the disadvantages caused by military life, and we recognise the difficulty that spouses and civil partners would have faced in maintaining their national insurance record while on an overseas posting. Their prospects of securing employment during the posting would have been significantly hampered by language barriers, for example, and they may have been unable to accrue UK qualifying years while abroad. Since last June, we have worked closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to devise a workable solution, and we are pleased to offer an approach that addresses this unique difficulty faced by the service community.

Under the Lords amendments and subsequent regulations, credits will be available for people who reach state pension age on or after 2016. Those credits build on the prospective credits in place from 2010-11, and help to ensure that people will not be prevented from gaining a full single-tier pension, even if they are in the now rare situation of having spent their entire working life accompanying their spouse abroad. The detailed design of the scheme, including the application process and information on when applications may start to be made, will be set out in regulations. Although it is difficult to give a precise figure, we estimate that about 20,000 people could benefit from the credits. Lords amendment 19 is a technical measure to accommodate the retrospective credits in the calculation of an individual’s foundation amount.

Lords amendment 2 deals with the issue of a statutory override for protected persons. The single-tier pension means the end of contracting out, so employers will have to pay more national insurance. The Bill provides for a statutory override to allow employers to change future contribution levels or accrual rates in order to recoup that increased national insurance when they would otherwise be prevented from making changes by their scheme rules. During the Bill’s passage through this House, the Government consulted on whether protected persons should be within the scope of the statutory override. We think that a relatively small group of individuals—perhaps 60,000—are affected.

The responses to the consultation were polarised, as employers wanted the flexibility to apply the override, while trade unions and others representing employees did not. We took the balanced judgment that we should honour promises made at the time of privatisation—promises that, in many cases, were subsequently confirmed by Ministers when legislation providing for pension protection was enacted. Lords amendment 2 makes it explicit that the statutory override cannot be used in relation to protected persons. Regulations will specify the details of who is considered to be a protected person, but the intention is to include all the people set out in our consultation response, especially rail workers, including Transport for London employees, and workers in the electricity, coal, and nuclear waste and decommissioning industries.

The group includes several technical amendments. Lords amendments 20 and 22 amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to make it clear that funds for paying the single-tier pension are provided by national insurance contributions, and that references to “benefit” include the single-tier pension. Lords amendment 23 repeals redundant provisions in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, while Lords amendment 24 removes a redundant reference in legislation to the contracting-out compliance standard. Lords amendment 25 deals with the application of the statutory override to shared-cost arrangements. Lords amendment 26 is a response to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It removes the power to create exceptions to the limit on the amount that employers may recoup under the override. The Bill originally allowed regulations to be made to create exemptions to the limit to deal with unconventional funding arrangements, but we are now making provision for such a power in primary legislation under Lords amendment 25.

In response to points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Lords amendments 12 and 13 provide that several regulations under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure. Lords amendment 13 specifically provides that frozen-rate regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure on every use.

Lords amendments 3 and 27 create a new class of voluntary national insurance contributions—class 3A. As the concept of the contributions was introduced in the other place, it is worth my spending a moment explaining more about it, as the House has not yet had the chance to consider it. The new class of contributions will allow pensioners to top up their additional state pension. It will be available to people who reach state pension age before the introduction of the single-tier pension on 6 April 2016. Details of the scheme, including the pricing, the maximum number of units and the administrative processes, will be set out in regulations. We will make details of the prices available shortly, but they will be set on an actuarially fair basis using the latest longevity figures. We envisage that the scheme will open in October 2015 and run for 18 months. It will help groups who have only modest amounts of additional pension, if any, such as women and the self-employed whose social and economic contributions were not captured in the state earnings-related pension scheme and are not fully reflected in the state second pension.

The scheme has just two simple entitlement conditions: first, a person must reach state pension age before 6 April 2016; secondly, they must be entitled to a UK pension. Even if someone has the full 30 qualifying years for a full basic state pension, they will not be debarred from paying class 3A contributions and boosting their state pension because they will be buying additional state pension, not basic state pension. I stress that that distinguishes the contributions from class 3 national insurance contributions, which fill gaps in the basic state pension.

We intend to cap the amount of additional pension payable as a result of class 3A at about £25 a week. As that extra pension will be additional state pension, it will be uprated according to the consumer prices index. The pension will be inheritable and people will be able to defer it in line with existing rules. More details of the scheme will be announced shortly, but the main regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Members will have the opportunity to debate the detail.

We have undertaken research and polling to gauge interest in the scheme. We expect to publish more information on likely interest and take-up shortly after the Budget, but our first poll suggests that 14% of pensioners might be interested. People’s ability to pay class 3 voluntary national insurance contributions to cover gaps in their contribution record for the basic state pension will be unaffected by the introduction of class 3A. We will put in place administrative arrangements to ensure that individuals who apply to pay class 3A contributions are made aware that they should first check their eligibility to pay class 3 contributions. People will need to consider whether making class 3A contributions is the best option for them. We believe that class 3A will allow some people to boost their state pension income with a secure, inflation-proof income that has the added advantage of survivor benefits.

I hope that the House, like their lordships, will support the Lords amendments. They improve the system for military wives and offer protection for protected workers. They tidy up several technical aspects of the Bill and, for people reaching state pension age before April 2016, introduce a new option of paying voluntary national insurance to top up their additional state pension. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may consider Lords amendments 5 to 8, 9 and amendment (a) thereto, 10, 11, 14 to 18 and 28 to 38.

Housing Benefit

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to the Opposition business, beginning with the prayer against the housing benefit regulations of 2014 in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition. The debate is limited to 90 minutes under Standing Order No. 16(1). I remind Back Benchers that there will be a six-minute time limit on their speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You are both up at the same time. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already given way to the Secretary of State.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

On a point of clarification.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. There can be only one person on their feet at a time. It is up to Rachel Reeves whether she wants to give way to the Secretary of State. She has given way to him once already and it is for her to judge whether she will do so again.

[Rachel Reeves]

I shall not give way to the Secretary of State, because he will have a chance to respond in a few minutes and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Let us take a moment to reflect on what this means. The Government have been telling local authorities to take housing benefit away from people who were in fact legally entitled to it all along. Most of these people were already in vulnerable positions and will have been pushed even further into severe hardship as a result of this Government’s errors.

Let us look at a few examples. A widower in Staffordshire suffering from mental health problems told of the sacrifices he had to make to find the extra £14 a week he needed to stay in his home. A 56-year-old woman from Rotherham, who receives support for health-related problems, has had to pay more than £700 in extra rent, which we now know was unlawful. In Greater Manchester, a grandmother who looks after her granddaughter, has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and who paid £200 in additional rent as a result of the bedroom tax fell into arrears and was threatened with eviction from the home she has lived in for 26 years. These people and many like them are now due a rebate, but nothing will compensate for the distress they have been caused or the time and money that the council will have to spend sorting out the mess this Government have caused. And now the Government want to apply the bedroom tax again to these people and thousands of others like them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

That is what we are calling on the Government to do today—to scrap the bedroom tax altogether.

We had no idea of the numbers affected and the Government clearly did not have a clue, so we asked the question that they should have asked: we asked local authorities how many people have been affected. Of 378 local authorities, 197 have now responded, including Birmingham city council, where 2,100 households are affected, Cardiff with 220 and Glasgow with 913, as well as Tory local authorities, such as Cheshire West and Chester council, where 275 households are affected, Tory Peterborough with 200 and Tory Wandsworth with 234—the list goes on. In total, our replies so far suggest that 21,655 households have been affected. That is on the basis of responses from barely half the councils, while many of them have said that they cannot give complete answers that include housing association tenants. It is therefore already clear that not only have this Government made a complete mess of their own policy, but they do not even have a clue how many people are affected by the loophole.

The Government have responded to this fiasco by scrambling to cover up their own mistake. They introduced a statutory instrument to close a loophole in their own legislation, without even giving this House an opportunity to scrutinise and debate it; it is only through this Opposition day that we can have a vote, which is why we called this debate today.

The bedroom tax was misconceived from the start, and it has been incompetently executed every step of the way. The chaos, confusion and extra costs are mounting, with the heaviest price being paid by the poorest and most vulnerable. The Government should scrap the bedroom tax today, but instead they are making it apply to an extra 40,000 households. If this Government will not scrap the bedroom tax, the next Labour Government will do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Peter Lilley to make a six-minute speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper]

I absolutely agree with—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that you are enthused by the debate, Mr Davies, but it does not help if we have a separate debate going on while a Member is speaking. It would be helpful if we could get through all the speakers. I hope to get everyone in.

[Rosie Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I did not hear the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say that those people were out of work.

The idea that welfare spending is coming under control is a myth. West Lancashire borough council has stated that its intention is to raise rents by 4.6% from April. That will increase housing benefit payments by £630,000 a year. We are seeing a significant and rapid increase in the council’s arrears. From being in the region of £375,000, they have shot up to nearly £500,000. How is that keeping welfare spending under control? Arrears are increasing across the sector. Social landlords have had to take on additional staff to collect rent and give budgeting advice.

Let us not forget that the Government have acknowledged that they have made a complete mess by rushing to prop up the housing benefit system using discretionary housing payments. Disabled people and people who need their own bedroom for medical reasons are going cap in hand to prove that they are poor, to get a discretionary housing payment handout. I understand that a large amount of discretionary housing payment is going unspent because the council’s means test is too stringent.

Some councils, believe it or not, are taking disability living allowance into account when determining whether someone should receive discretionary housing payment, even though the guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions states that councils should not do so because it inflates a disabled person’s income unfairly. Disability living allowance is meant to fund additional costs that are due to the claimant’s disability or health issue. It is not meant to fund the additional housing costs resulting from the spare bedroom tax.

Discretionary housing payments should be awarded for 26 weeks or 52 weeks, but some councils, including West Lancashire borough council, are offering them for only 13 weeks, which leads to more form-filling and bureaucracy.

There is no escaping the fact that welfare spending has to be addressed. However, the snapshot that I have given of West Lancashire—just one community—shows that the bedroom tax is not the way to do it. The abject failure of this policy is costing taxpayers more and more. Although Ministers are talking tough, they are, as ever, failing to deliver. In their case, talk is not cheap. The only transitional arrangement that we need to discuss is the transitioning of this legislation off the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

What I am not clear about is this: what does the hon. Lady say to the 1.5 million people on the housing waiting list or to the 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation—perhaps having to sleep on the floor or on sofas—when her party is advocating a policy that uses taxpayers’ money to provide a surplus room for others?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Long interventions will not help us to get through this debate. There are too many interventions. People should not just come in and intervene; they should enter the debate.

[Sandra Osborne]

It is of course acceptable that where people wish to downsize they should be helped and incentivised to do so, but they should not be forced to do so. In any case, it is clear that the housing is not available, and that this policy is not working and is not practical.

It is of course very welcome that we in Scotland have benefited from the decision of the Scottish Government fully to mitigate the bedroom tax, in recognition that it is fundamentally unfair and that people, who are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, are struggling because of it. It will be important for Scottish Members to monitor the detail of how assistance will be given as the proposals in the Scottish Government’s budget are implemented. It is just a pity that it took so long to achieve, because many people have struggled and still are struggling. Some have already moved into private accommodation at exorbitant cost and have lost their long-term home. It is a good example of what devolution can achieve and I commend it to our friends in England.

Now that we have discovered this loophole, it has emerged that a number of people—those who had been in the same local authority house since January 1996 and been continuously entitled to housing benefit—should not have had their benefit reduced as a result of the bedroom tax. How could this have been allowed to happen with such a sensitive and controversial measure? I am currently in contact with the local authorities that cover my constituency to ensure that the people who qualify for this exemption from the bedroom tax are fully reimbursed. Sixty-eight cases have been identified so far in one council area, so that figure can be at least doubled when taking into account the whole of my constituency. The exemption will be backdated to 1 April 2013, but the Government will be taking steps to remedy the loophole “shortly”. The measure will be reinstated as soon as that happens—talk about raising hopes and then dashing them.

The whole policy is an absolute mess and a disgrace. It will do nothing to solve the housing problem and it should be abolished immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am just going to help a little bit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye, in which case he will not get in at the moment because of how many interventions we have already had. That is how bad it is: we are cutting each other’s speaking times down. That will have to go down to four minutes shortly and some people will drop off the end.

[Heather Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for staying seated. I am sure he will make a magnificent speech in a while.

I finish by saying that can Opposition Members please have serious conversations with their local housing associations, the Homes and Communities Agency and the big providers—the Legal & Generals, the big insurance companies and the other people who want to invest in big infrastructure? If there is an absolute need for one and two-bedroom rented properties in their constituencies, they should open up those conversations. Legal & General, among other insurance companies, wants to take on long-term rented properties. Please do not have a whinge and a moan in this Chamber. Opposition Members should get out there, do their jobs and see what they are meant to be sorting out for the vulnerable people in their constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree that the lack of affordable housing is a core issue, but there is also a chronic mismatch between the needs of prospective social tenants and the available housing stock. I have made the point many times in the House that, across Scotland, over 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom property, yet only 23% of the housing stock is one-bedroom size. Even if everyone were to be allocated a home of the requisite size, there are just not enough smaller houses to go around.

There has been a lot of talk today about the shortage of housing. The Scottish Government have managed to deliver more social housing than any other Administration in the UK, even on a fixed budget—a diminishing budget. It is a matter of political priority. If we understand there is a housing shortage, we need to fix it. There is no excuse.

Local authorities, housing associations and the Scottish Government have all had to take action to minimise the unwanted side effects of the bedroom tax, not least by topping up the budgets for discretionary housing payments by £20 million in the last year, which is the maximum amount allowed under section 70 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, and by this year making available £35 million for discretionary housing payments, which would, in effect, enable councils to mitigate the entire impact of the bedroom tax for everyone affected. However, as I have said, this remains a reserved matter, and the Scottish Government have had to request permission from UK Ministers to increase the DHP budget. As far as I am aware, the Deputy First Minister is still awaiting a reply to her letter of January to Lord Freud making that request, so can I press Ministers today to listen to the Scottish Parliament’s view on this matter—a view supported by four parties, including their own coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats—and impress upon their ministerial colleague in the other place to crack on and signal his consent? Frankly, it is a travesty in the 21st century that a democratically elected Parliament has to ask permission from an unelected peer to spend its own people’s money. I hope that that is one anachronism that we can put right this September.

The money we are having to find to do that in Scotland must be found from budgets for other devolved policy areas, but given the substantial knock-on costs the policy is having for devolved institutions and housing associations, the democratic consensus around the issue and the distress it is causing to disadvantaged people, I do not think standing aside is an option. Although today we are debating a technicality, it is a technicality that exposes deeper flaws in the housing benefit legislation and exposes the warped values and misconceptions that have informed it.

From the start, the bedroom tax was unfair and ill conceived. Now, nearly a year on, it is not only failing to meet its own policy objectives, but creating needless bureaucracy and displacing large costs on to other parts of the public sector. A policy that costs the public purse more than it saves is a bad policy. A policy that harms our most disadvantaged citizens is a bad policy. A policy with big technical loopholes is a bad policy. I urge the Government to do the right thing and abandon the policy today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Sheila Gilmore. If you could end your speech at five minutes past 3 so the Minister may begin her response then, that will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

Will the hon. Lady clarify—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has finished her speech, which is helpful because I am sure Members would like to hear from the Minister as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The details of a written ministerial statement regarding a decision made by the Secretary of State for Health on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was released to the media before that statement was laid before the House today. Will you tell us whether that grotesque discourtesy to the people of that area and to Members and colleagues in this House was in fact in order?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr Speaker deprecates the premature release of press and Government statements due to be made in this House. The Vote Office received the text of the written ministerial statement at 1.34 today. It was made available to Members as soon as possible. You have made your point, and I am sure that Mr Speaker will look into it.