Pensions Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You are both up at the same time. Is the hon. Lady giving way?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Welfare Reforms and Poverty
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There will be a 10-minute time limit in this debate.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, interventions have to be very short, because others want to speak. If interventions could be shortened, that would help.
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The docks are another area where mesothelioma was a constant threat and problem, particularly in places such as Leith, which is a big dock area.
On compensation, as I have said, I think the numbers are still to peak. There is a mesothelioma problem in schools and I think the problem will only get worse. It will be interesting to hear what the insurance companies have to say about teachers and others in schools who will suffer from this horrible disease.
On the levels of payment, it is totally unjust and unfair that victims of mesothelioma whose documents were either lost or destroyed will receive less than 100% of the average compensation. In an earlier debate we argued that the level should be set at 90% of the average. A precedent has already been set in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances involving compulsory insurance.
We support the cross-party amendment 1, which would set a lower level of 80%, although it is not ideal. I think that amendment 4, which would set the level at 100%, is the fairest solution and perhaps that is what we would seek in a different and better political environment. I think that the insurance companies, as opposed to the victims, could agree to set the level at 80%. The 90% level was already affordable, as it was still within the 3% levy on gross written premiums with which not only the Government, but the industry, are happy. If we set the level at 80%, I am sure the insurance industry would not only be happy, but feel as though it had got a good deal. At least it would put an extra £6,200 in the pockets of victims. Morally, 80% is the absolute bare minimum the Government should be aiming for.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that in terms of events in the workplace we are talking about identical events with a different period of maturity into full-blown mesothelioma? Some people with identical circumstances will not qualify, while others will. Will he speculate on the issues that that may cause? Someone may have been through the same process as the person sitting next to them in the workplace—in the case of Southampton, handling blue asbestos in the docks, bailing it up and throwing it on to the dockside—with the disease appearing many years later over different periods for different people—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need shorter interventions—there are quite a lot of other speakers to get in. Interventions are important, but they must be shorter.
Ian Lavery
This issue has been explained. This is not just a shipyard, mining or other heavy industry problem; this disease can be contracted in the classroom. We really need to look at the position with asbestos in schools. I fear that not enough data have been kept on children over the years. People never believe, 30 or 40 years later, that they have mesothelioma. They think back to what type of employment could have caused it, but it could have started in school. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.
Lloyd’s made £2.7 billion between January and June 2012. Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million last year. Aviva, between January and June 2013, made £605 million. That is just three companies. They are awash with finance. Believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, they intend to continue to be awash with finance.
The regulatory impact assessment estimated that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add that to the cost to the victims of other asbestos diseases, and the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry, that represents a saving to insurers of about £1 billion. That is absolutely scandalous.
Housing Benefit
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
Does the Minister agree that the spare room subsidy is one reason why we do not have the right mix of housing? Social housing providers could build houses as big as they wanted, knowing that the Government would cover the full bill irrespectively. In that respect, does he deplore the social housing provider in my area, of which a Labour MP is a director? It complains on the one hand that it has too many three-bedroom houses—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just to help hon. Members, we need shorter interventions. Many hon. Members wish to speak and the matter is important to all our constituencies, so we need short interventions.
Steve Webb
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend raises an important point on the responsibility of social landlords to build housing stock to meet the needs of local people. For too long under the previous Government, that did not happen.
My hon. Friend made the point that some social landlords have worked the system. One or two hon. Members have shouted, “No, that cannot be the case,” but I want to refer to the oral evidence given by Fife council to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Fife council saw the arrangements as a nice little earner. Apropos of two-bedroom properties occupied by a single person, Fife council said:
“we have under-occupied them to maintain an income from them”.
It also stated that the
“progress that we had made in maintaining our income by allocating properties with perhaps a spare bedroom is under risk now.”
I do not apologise for that. The purpose of housing benefit is not to subsidise social landlords who are using the system; it is to help people who are in need.
Lucy Powell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister incorrectly gave figures for last year—the bedroom tax was introduced only in April. I was talking about money that will come back this year. I can guarantee that the Minister will not be getting any money back from Manchester this year—the year of the bedroom tax.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We do not need any help from those on the back row. That was not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.
Steve Webb
I will come back to that in a moment.
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that we are addressing many of the points raised in the conference motion, not least because the motion congratulates our colleagues on their role in securing additional discretionary housing payments—something they can all be proud of.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central says that I referred to last year’s figures. I did, because we have not got to the end of this year yet. Last year, we stood here and other Opposition Members said about last year’s budget exactly what she has just said. We allocated DHPs for other changes to housing benefits. They said there would not be enough money, but at the end of the year substantial amounts were repaid.
Steve Webb
I have no idea what that gesture means, but last year we allocated just under £1 million to Manchester, of which more than £500,000 was repaid. This year we have allocated nearly £2 million to Manchester to address those concerns. If it finds that it is still short of cash, despite sending back £500,000 last year, we will of course consider an application to our top-up fund, which we have not so far received.
We have heard nothing from the—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. In fairness, a lot of people want to listen to this. All of our constituencies are affected and it is better if we all listen. The Minister has given way a lot. Hon. Members should indicate that they want the Minister to give way, but please accept it if he does not want to
Steve Webb
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members want to participate in the debate, so I will sum up the Government’s position.
The Opposition do not talk about the £150 billion deficit, because they are rightly embarrassed and are ashamed of the state in which they left our finances. They would have had to deal with the same deficit that we had to deal with, but we have no idea how they would have done so. The idea that they could reverse this change by finding £500 million from obscure corners is implausible. They could not raise anything like the sort of amounts they are talking about. We recognise that it is not appropriate to expect every person to move to a smaller property, which is why we have trebled the budget for discretionary housing payments. I say to Opposition Members and all my hon. Friends that if someone comes to see them with a legitimate reason not to trade down—they do not have an option to work, to take in a lodger, or to do the other things people do —the local authority should be asked to explain whether it has spent its cash and, if it has spent it, whether it has asked the Government for more cash. We can then have a conversation. Until that point, we need fairness between—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I said that hon. Members should indicate if they want to intervene, but do not continue to stay on your feet, Mr Burden. It is for me to judge and for the Minister to give way. Please do not take advantage of the situation. That is not good for this Chamber.
Steve Webb
We need action on overcrowding, we need fairness between social and private tenants and we need action on the deficit. Those are the things we need. The Labour party has no answer to those problems. The coalition has addressed them. I commend the amendment to the House.
Heather Wheeler
No, I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.
That is what a proactive council does. I ask Labour Members: what are you doing talking to your Labour leader; what are you doing talking to your housing chairman; what are you doing talking to the Homes and Communities Agency; what are you all doing? The answer is, “Not enough”.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady says “you”, but I am not responsible and I have no wish to be responsible for what she says.
Heather Wheeler
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. What are Opposition Members doing about it? Clearly not enough.
I shall finish. This motion is despicable. Thank goodness for the reasoned amendment, which I shall vote for with great pleasure.
Heather Wheeler
I will not give way.
Mr Deputy Speaker said that everyone in this Chamber is responsible for what goes on in their constituencies. For goodness’ sake, Labour Members should start leading in their constituencies.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order—[Interruption.] Order. That means you, too, Mr Rotheram. Let us calm down. The hon. Lady has made a statement and I think Mr Twigg would like to have caught her eye, but it is up to the Member who has the Floor whether they want to take an intervention.
Stephen Twigg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady did not show me or the House the courtesy of allowing me to intervene after she referred to something that I had said. Does she accept that the figures that she has given are from before the bedroom tax was introduced? This year, Liverpool city council will certainly spend the entire discretionary housing pot.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, but it was certainly a point of clarification.
Mrs Main
As I was about to say, unicorns do not exist, fairies do not exist and—it does not matter how often Opposition Members say it—a bedroom tax does not exist. I found it very interesting when we all looked at our Order Papers yesterday and there it was: we were going to discuss a bedroom tax. Funnily enough, however, we are not discussing a bedroom tax, because it does not exist and it would be procedurally out of order for us to debate it. The mishmash of today’s debate has been rushed through because the Opposition realise that by closing their eyes and saying the wishful words “bedroom tax” they cannot conjure one up—it does not exist. If they consult Tolley’s tax guide, they will see that they are being financially illiterate—
Pensions Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland
I had the great pleasure of living in Scotland for three years—two years in Glasgow. When I moved up there, I was more able to understand French than a broad Glaswegian accent, but I rectified that. He will be pleased that I know how to pronounce the name of his constituency in its entirety—[Interruption.] Gloaming—the word he utters from his seat on the Front Bench—is an excellent Scottish word.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I suggest we move on to new clause 1 at some point.
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I remind the House what the improvements to auto-enrolment will do, which has not come out in the debate? Let us look at the figures. Some 1.6 million people have signed up for auto-enrolment. Of course, the ability to opt out remains, but rather than the expected one in three opting out, the figure is only 10%. Many millions of people are not currently saving for their retirement, but auto-enrolment will lead to between 6 million and 9 million people saving for the first time by 2018. That is crucial.
It is important to remember—this, too, has not been mentioned in the debate—that, as well as employee contributions, there will be support from employers and the Government. People aged 22 or over who are earning more than £9,440 a year will be automatically put into the pension scheme. Individuals who choose to save 4% of their income will benefit from an employer contribution of 3% and tax relief of 1%. It is important to welcome and emphasise that—it should be welcomed and emphasised by all hon. Members.
The key debate is on charging. The Minister referred to the OFT report that raised concerns about standards, particularly in legacy schemes. The Government have rightly amended the Bill to take that into account. I warmly welcome amendment 30 and his announcement of the consultation. I believe the consultation should be welcomed and not criticised.
I should gently make one point to my namesake, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. He gave the impression that he was critical of the Government’s approach on consultation, but in amendment (a), which he has tabled, proposed new subsection (3) to Government new clause 1 states:
“Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation”.
It is odd that he is critical of the Government’s approach while calling for the very same consultation in black and white.
The hon. Gentleman was slightly wrong, or he misplaced his emphasis, in his suggestion that the Government are consulting rather than taking action. He knows—his proposal shows this—that consultation is a necessary precursor to legislation. It is important in getting legislation right. Without daring to put words into the mouth of the Minister, I think it is important to say that the intention is clear—that there should be a charge cap and that one will be introduced. The point of the consultation is not whether to introduce one: it is to find out the best way to do so. We should be clear about the subject of the consultation.
I have one question for the Minister, which he may be able to answer. The announcement on the consultation is imminent, although it is not happening as part of the Bill, so will we see him back at the Dispatch Box soon to make it? He is clearly the right and proper person to make the announcement, given his involvement in the Bill. I hope that he will be back, perhaps even in the next 24 or 48 hours, to announce it, and I and others look forward to welcoming that and the details that I am sure he will wish to lay out.
Despite this being a complicated subject in terms of the figures, the construct of the Bill and the pension sector as a whole, we all know that in the end this is about people’s future incomes and ensuring that they have a reasonable standard of living in their retirement, as well as more certainty in their retirement. The figures that the Minister provided about the current impact of the 1.5% and 1% charges were startling in showing just how much money people lose over the course of saving for their pensions. That is why a cap is right.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that in his 78-minute speech—at least, I made it 78 minutes, not 86 minutes—[Interruption.] I am being generous: perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) thought it felt like 86 minutes. In any case, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East showed his knowledge of his brief, and I commend him for that, but it is slightly strange to hear his many recommendations for auto-enrolment when the previous Government would not even countenance those suggestions at the time of introduction. Nor did he acknowledge the problems with the 1% and 1.5% charges.
This has been a long and challenging process. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made contributions that have been listened to and addressed. I look forward to the consultation. All of us with an interest in this issue should watch it closely and take part in it. We should also encourage others to take part. I shall end by congratulating the Minister, his team and his colleagues on what they have done to get this important Bill to this stage. It will lead to more certainty and fairer retirement incomes for the people of this country.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There comes a time when accuracy is important in this House. John MacGregor, as Secretary of State, gave assurances that when British Rail was privatised pensions would be protected. He said not that they would have the same protections as private companies but that pensions would be protected. There is a point of accuracy, so that Ministers do not attempt to mislead this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sure that nobody would deliberately mislead this House—let us clear that one up. That is not a point of order but it has certainly been corrected for the record, which will be read tomorrow.
Steve Webb
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was not a correction, because what I said was not incorrect.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I did not say that. I also said that the first point was not a point of order, and neither is the Minister’s.
Steve Webb
Let me reiterate: Jarvis and the other firms paid the pension protection fund levy.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I understand that tensions are running high, but we will have an orderly debate.
Steve Webb
Jarvis, as an employer, was paying an insurance policy. It was paying into a fund so that if it became insolvent its employers would get the payout, and that is exactly what has happened.
The pension protection fund was created nearly a decade ago and every year Jarvis paid in on behalf of their employees so that in the event of insolvency those employees, and those of the other two former nationalised rail industry firms who were spun off, would get protection. That is exactly what has happened. In other words, to come along in 2013 and say, “Oh no, we did not expect this to happen. We should get special treatment and we should get 100% protection,” when other people who work for private firms do not get that when they pay the protection fund levy and get a payout—[Interruption.]
Steve Webb
Other people who work for private firms get a payout according to how the pension protection fund works.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East, who is not in her place, talked about annuities. She seemed to think that requiring people to go to an annuity broker was the answer to the problems and I think she missed the point. We want to see a much wider range of options for people when they want to turn their pension pot into a pension income. Rather than putting into primary legislation a single model for a single product, we must ensure that people have choices so that they can choose an annuity, consider draw-down products or consider deferring and so that they can try to ensure that they get the best value for money. I certainly accept that the annuity market is not working as well as it should.
This debate has gone on for the best part of four hours and the recurrent theme has been that when the coalition Government took power in 2010, there was a huge amount of unfinished business on automatic enrolment. What happened with small pots, charge caps, decumulation and governance had not been dealt with. The Opposition have spent the past however many hours asking how we could possibly not have acted on all the issues they failed to address in 13 years, but we are addressing them. We have taken effective action and tomorrow we will take a further step when, for the first time, we consider capping the charges on automatic enrolment pension schemes. This Parliament will be seen to implement vital pension reform in the state and private sectors and to be doing the job properly and I commend our amendments to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
Amendment proposed to new clause 1: (a), at end add—
‘(2) In this section—
(a) “charges”; and
(b) “transaction costs”
shall be defined in regulations by the Secretary of State.
(3) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation, which must include the views of—
(a) the Financial Conduct Authority; and
(b) the Pensions Regulator.
(4) With reference to paragraph (2)(a), any public consultation must consider the different elements which comprise charges and not just the annual management charge.
(5) Such charges, together with any transaction costs incurred by the funds in which qualifying schemes are invested, shall be declared on an annual basis to the Pensions Regulator, which shall maintain a public register thereof.
(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set the standards by which pension schemes must declare charges and transaction costs for the purposes of the register and for declaration to their members and their members’ employers.
(7) The standards set out in regulations under subsection (6) shall be reviewed every three years.
(8) The Secretary of State shall have power to make regulations ordering other disclosure arrangements on administration charges.
(9) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.—(Gregg McClymont.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Greg Mulholland
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for the contribution that her Committee continues to make. Let us face it, those of us who have been in this place for more than one Parliament have been hearing about frozen pensions for all that time—some of us for many years. Rather than our trying to solve it today through this Bill, is it not time that all the parties sat down together to discuss what commitment could be made for the next Parliament, regardless of who gets in, rather than the next Government being able to say “Well, the last Government didn’t do it, so we’re not going to either”?
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that, under the procedure of the House, amendment 1, which would remove clause 20, will not be called because of the guillotine?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I am not calling it. Unfortunately, that is the procedure of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Bill, which is an important, historic and long-overdue change in the pension system, but will he acknowledge that charities such as Winston’s Wish, based in my constituency, and the Childhood Bereavement Network have expressed concerns about the bereavement support arrangements in the Bill, particularly for parents who still need that support after one year—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This is meant to be an intervention, not a speech. It is unfair on the other Members waiting to speak. In fairness, Mr Horwood, you ought to give a little more consideration and make shorter interventions.
Steve Webb
The charity in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Winston’s Wish, was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and we take its concerns seriously. I stress that what we have put in place is a structure of reform that will involve us actually spending slightly more over the coming years on support for bereaved families, but there is a debate to be had about how long the support should last. For various reasons, going beyond a year raises difficult issues. For example, a short-term benefit can be disregarded for universal credit, whereas a long-term income replacement benefit almost certainly would not be. By delivering the money in this way, therefore, the lump sum is tax free and the short-term payment is not counted against people’s universal credit, whereas a long-term payment would be, meaning that bereaved families might end up getting less support were we to extend the period. So there are trade-offs and reasons why these balances have been struck.
Disabled People
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Lady is not for giving way. It is up to her whether she wishes to give way, and I think she has signalled often enough.
Esther McVey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I have been left with limited time and have many answers to give, I will not be giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I will raise some of his points. I would like to point out—he overlooked this—that we spend £50 billion a year on support and benefits for disabled people. That is a fifth higher than the average in Europe, double the rate in America spends and six times that in Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman made an unusual speech today, talking about his new single personal budget. As per normal, we heard no details whatever. How would it be funded? Would it be means-tested? Would he abolish PIP? The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was asked whether he would reverse the spare rooms subsidy—something he said he would not be doing—but obviously the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) thinks he is above his own leader. He is changing his policy on the hoof.
Esther McVey
I have got nearly two hours of questions to answer, so I will keep going.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) talked about the Remploy figures in Stoke. I can tell him that 110 people left the factory and that 82 engaged with the extra support we were giving. Of those, 30 are now in work and 36 are on Work Choice.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) talked about housing and the spare room subsidy. It is quite incredible that people are not looking at the complexities, at how social housing was not built, but collapsed under the previous Government—we are now building it—or at how the stock is used properly. One thing nobody talked about is the fact that among those on the waiting lists—the 1.8 million—are children who are disabled. There are people on those lists who are disabled. We are looking after those people too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) talked about—
Tom Greatrex
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could provide me with some guidance. The Minister is obviously choosing not to give way to those on the Opposition Front Bench, but is it appropriate or courteous for her to refuse to give way when she is referring to a point that I have raised in the debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order. It is in the hands of the Minister whether she wishes to give way or not.
Esther McVey
My time appears to have been squeezed, but I am giving the House the facts and the reality of the situation. I have very little time to do that.
When the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) talked about a cumulative impact assessment, and about the “Destination Unknown” report, did he know—perhaps he did not—that the report was based on just six households and that it ran to over 100 pages? The people who have talked about cumulative impact assessments today do not realise that they are not based on the complexities of the issue or that the benefits will not have been rolled out until 2017. We cannot stop part-way. It is a dynamic benefit, so none of that is possible.
The Opposition do not seem to understand that, as we cannot do a cumulative impact assessment in the way that they suggest, we have to look at the vision and at what we are trying to create and ask how we are going to get it right. There are key things that we do with that. We have slowed down the process hugely to ensure that we monitor it and look at the progression and at the roll-out, and should anything along the way not be in line with our overall vision, we would stop and alter it. We have done that throughout. That is what we do when we cannot do a cumulative impact assessment. I do not give out misinformation; we get it right. We will also have independent reviews in 2014 to ensure that we are getting it right. Many of the changes, particularly those involving PIP and DLA, will not involve looking at those on indefinite awards until October 2015, after all the analysis has been done.
I am amazed that the Opposition ruggedly pursue something, knowing that they could not do it. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, Labour never did this. There was a reason for that, but we have found a way round it, which is to analyse the process as we go along. We are implementing very small roll-outs in order to get this right.
I smiled when I heard Citizens Advice being quoted frequently today. Is that the same Citizens Advice that hired Polly Billington, a Labour adviser, in November 2012? She will be head of its campaigns and communications, and is a former senior adviser to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. Is that why we have to have those definitive quotes all the time? I find it so. Maybe that is why the Opposition are now smiling.
I also want to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who spoke passionately about everyone fulfilling their potential. That is key to what we are doing. Our latest document, called “Making it Happen” came out on 2 July, and it was produced in collaboration with disabled people and their organisations. This is about supporting them and finding out what their needs, their aspirations, their desires are, and finding out what they want to do and how they want to be portrayed. They have the same dreams as every one of us—yes, they want a job; yes, they want to get married; and yes, they want a family life—and we are supporting them in that.
That is what universal credit is all about. It is about helping people to get into work, to do as little or as much as they can do. It is about giving them extra support, and about tailored allowances. It is also about a tapered relief, which is something that the Labour Government never introduced. Under them, the system was very statist, with people being told, “You must do 16 hours”, and a 98% tax rate sometimes being applied. We are not doing that.
It is taking a long time to get this right, but it is the right thing to do and I am very proud indeed of what we are doing—
Remploy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
What did you do when you closed Remploy factories—
Mrs McGuire
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry; I might have touched a nerve.
I also wonder, given the way in which the House works, whether the Minister had given Members advance warning of her briefing at 4.30 this afternoon.
I shall turn now to the substance of the review. The Minister often cites the Sayce review, as did her predecessor, as protection for her decisions. I would remind the House, however, that the Sayce review did not recommend the speedy closure of the Remploy factories in the way that the Government have progressed it. Indeed, it recommended a phased development of the process. Once again, however, the review has been brought into play. The Government’s aim has always been to get rid of the Remploy liability in this financial year, and no matter what else was said, this was always going to be the cut-off point. That has been confirmed this morning. Of course I welcome the fact that viable bids have been received for some of the factories and that 17 of the 27 CCTV businesses are in the commercial process. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that it appears that eight of the other 10 will continue in one form or another.
The textile division based in Scotland has a long and proud tradition of making security and chemical protection wear for the Ministry of Defence, and the disappearance of the skills built up over many years will be a great loss. The textile division recently lost a major MOD contract that it was eminently capable of carrying out, given the quality and timeliness of its work. Given that the factories are under pressure of closure, will the Minister tell us whether she or any of her officials had any engagement with MOD procurement officials to encourage them to use Remploy as a supplier, given that it had carried out the work successfully over many years? It has never been properly recognised that much of the kit worn by our service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq was made in Remploy factories. Did the Minister use her good offices to encourage the MOD to award that contract to Remploy, if necessary using article 19?
Will the Minister also explain what she meant when she said that there was an asset bid from a social enterprise company for the textile section? What opportunities does she believe that that bid will open up? Many of us on the Opposition Benches see the words “asset bid” and worry that they might really mean asset stripping. We need to know exactly what is involved.
I also want to ask the Minister to define the word “success”, which she used in the closing paragraph of her statement. She mentioned that about 1,100 former Remploy workers were choosing to work with personal caseworkers to find other jobs. In other words, they are not currently in employment. Another 400 are in work and another 300 are in training, so by my calculation, significantly less than 50% of the former Remploy workers who have already been made redundant are currently in employment. I am wondering what the Minister’s benchmark for success is.
Given that the Work programme is performing three times worse than doing nothing for disabled people—
Mrs McGuire
The Secretary of State keeps saying “rubbish”, but he needs to listen—[Interruption.] I did not realise that the Minister had brought along—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that we need to hear both sides. I was happy to hear the Minister and will certainly be happy to hear and wish to hear the shadow Minister. Interruptions are not helpful.
Mrs McGuire
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State wants to say something, he should make his own statements and not heckle.
Given that the Work programme—[Interruption.] This is ridiculous, Mr Deputy Speaker, frankly. Given that the Work programme is not performing for disabled people, can the Minister say how the former Remploy workers are going to be supported in their quest for employment?
Finally, if the Minister looks at the areas where the Remploy closures are happening, she will find that there are unemployment rates of 7.5%, 8.2%, 8.1%, 7.4% and 7.9%—nearly double the national average—in the majority of cases. Does she really think that the closure of these factories today is an indication that she is really there to support disabled workers?
Jobs and Business
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A great many Members wish to speak, and it would be helpful if speakers could show some restraint.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need short interventions, because they are taking up a lot of time and many more Members wish to speak.
Mr Jones
I would be intrigued to know which piece of health legislation would not be covered by the proposal. Again, I think that it is simply one of the issues that have been trumpeted by certain Members on the deregulatory wing of the Conservative party, who have clearly been prevented from pursuing the worst excesses of Beecroft by the Liberal Democrats. I just think it is complete nonsense.
On immigration, I consider the announcements in the Queen’s Speech to be a knee-jerk reaction from the Prime Minister to the threat he sees from his Back Benchers and from the UK Independence party. We have heard a lot of strong language about a crackdown on migrants, and in relation not only to migration but to access to health care and benefits. I understand that a ministerial group on immigration has been meeting, but it has not yet come up with a great deal because most of the plans that have been put forward have been blocked. The Health Secretary has been saying that we have a problem with health tourism, but he cannot tell us how much it costs.
The only real legislation put forward on immigration is secondary legislation that will enshrine the rules on deporting foreign prisoners and on getting private landlords somehow to check whether their tenants are entitled to be in the country. The first one is already law and so will affect nothing, and I do not see how the second can work without some type of registration scheme. Also, it will not apply to the bulk of immigration in this country, which it is threatened will come from Romania and Bulgaria, because that will be perfectly legal.
It is interesting that Nigel Farage says that he is now the heir to Thatcher. I remind Members that it was Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act in 1986, which allowed the free transfer of labour across Europe. These proposals will have no effect. The Prime Minister is trying to act tough, but in practice he can do very little about the transfer of EU migrants. In many ways that transfer of labour has been good for British people, because many people in the north-east who were made redundant when the shipyards closed now work all over Europe, making a contribution not only to the economy of those countries but here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse referred to the fact that we are at the fag-end of this Parliament. I have to say that the Business Secretary looked very unhappy this morning. He reminds me a little of the father of the bride at a shotgun wedding who is now going round saying, “I told you it wouldn’t last very long.” The Prime Minister obviously has a problem with his children on the Back Benches who are now in open revolt. It will be very interesting to see how it all ends. The lack in this Queen’s Speech of a positive economic stimulus over the next two years will add to the misery that is being faced day in, day out by many thousands of people in this country, many in my constituency.
Dr Offord
As I said earlier—I think the hon. Lady has deliberately decided not to understand what I said—this involves elective and semi-elective surgery and other cases. Sometimes people come into the country when they are pregnant and decide to have their child here. If that is a possibility, they should be prevented from coming here. Secondly, and most importantly, they should be forced to have their own insurance policy. I cannot say whether the hon. Lady has been abroad, but I know that if I go to India or New York and find myself in an accident requiring medical attention, I will receive a wallet biopsy from the ambulance man, which will determine the type of treatment I get. [Interruption.] All we are seeking is the same for this country; it is about fairness. It is not about denying people medical treatment; it is about fairness. [Interruption.] I am going to move on. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We need the debate to be conducted through the Chair rather than to have cross-channel discussions. I understand that the debate is getting a little tense, but I am sure we can get back to where we need to be on the Queen’s Speech.
Dr Offord
I bow to your superior knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I want to move on to discuss other aspects of immigration and what I would like to see in the Government’s legislative programme. We heard earlier about people entering this country from the EU and migrant countries and about the problems they have caused. I have a lot of problems with this in my constituency. In Edgware, for example, several people living in garages told me that they could not afford to go home. On a recent ward visit to Watford Way in Hendon, one of my constituents and I went to an old commercial garage in which scores of people were living rough. These were people who beg locally and they were visibly east European. I spoke to some of them who claimed that they did not have the money to get back home. Funds are available, however, and I should like them to make use of them, because their current lifestyle is unacceptable. That is the face of Labour’s immigration policy in the last decade: people sleeping in garages in my constituency.
As recently as this week, we saw members of the Metropolitan police on horseback going to areas around Marble Arch, rounding up people—particularly Bulgarians and Romanians—and checking their identification papers to establish what they are doing, who they are and why they are here. At present, as the House knows, they are not allowed to work, but those restrictions will soon end, and they will have three months in which to demonstrate that they can support themselves. If they cannot do that, the Border Agency will summon them for an interview and ask them what they are doing. If they refuse to turn up, there is nothing that the agency can do. It should be an arrestable offence not to turn up, but it is not, and they can be picked up again in future sweeps. Moreover, they can leave the country and come back again, in which event their three-months time frame will start all over again. The Immigration Bill should address some of those points, and I hope that the Government have heard my plea.
I now want to talk about what will not be in the Bill. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—who is not in the Chamber at present, but who has been described as “the popular Member for Limehouse—referred to some of the issues that would not be included, but omitted to mention provision for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
Lord Lawson made his position clear at the weekend. Within hours, the Deputy Prime Minister had decided that he knew better than Lord Lawson and, indeed, better than anyone else. He said:
“There are 3 million of our fellow countrymen and women in this country whose jobs rely directly on our participation and role and place in what is after all the largest borderless single market.”
The hon. Member for Preston also gave that figure. I asked him where he had got it, a question that I do not believe he was able to answer.
Mark Hendrick
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Switzerland and Norway have to abide by all the EU regulations and directives pertaining to the single market, but have no control over or say in them because they are not EU members. While enjoying some of the benefits of being in the single market, they have none of the decision-making powers that membership of the EU confers. If we leave the EU, we will have to start from scratch, and will probably have to do exactly what Norway, in particular, is doing: accept, wholesale—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) made a 19-minute speech, and has made, I think, five interventions since then. Interventions should not be a way of making another speech. They must be short, because others wish to speak.
Dr Offord
Let me respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point by saying that I think there are certain products that parts of the EU cannot do without. For instance, I know that places such as Italy could not do without Lancashire cheese. I have tasted that very cheese in your room on occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, during some of your receptions.
Was the Deputy Prime Minister claiming, in his “3 million” statement, that Britain would not negotiate a reciprocal deal to avoid tariffs? I should like to know the answer to that, particularly given that we import more from the EU as a whole than we export to it.
According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, there is
“no reason to suppose that unemployment would rise significantly if the UK were to withdraw from the EU. Withdrawal could cause disruption”
—I acknowledge that—
“but it is most unlikely that export sales to EU markets would cease completely”.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse quoted from The Daily Telegraph. One of the quotes cited the Institute of Directors, which in 2000 came to the opposite conclusion to that of South Bank university. It estimated that there was a net cost to the UK from staying out of the EU of about 1.75% of GDP, which was about £15 billion at the time, but all those figures are completely worthless now as so much has changed since then. We were promised no more boom and bust, but we now realise that that is not the case—it has not been the case for the past couple of years.
All the underlying calculations are simply wrong now, and we no longer know what the true situation would be. I therefore ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to commission a cost-benefit analysis on Britain’s continued membership of the EU, to establish what the economic consequences of Britain’s withdrawal would be. I ask it to do that for no other reason than that the Business Secretary said in opening today’s debate that he was interested in dealing with “factoids”, and I would like to see the relevant factoids. I would also like the Deputy Prime Minister to use the correct factoids, instead of scaremongering people into thinking that Britain cannot leave the EU.
There has been some talk about the UK Independence party today, and I, too, will mention it briefly. I believe that in the past couple of weeks UKIP has come to be seen by some as offering a panacea for all the problems of the UK, but I do not believe that is true. I do not think its members and supporters are all fruitcakes, nuts and loops either, and I believe we need to take them on on policy—or, rather, on their lack of policies. I agree with them in some areas, however, and many people voted for UKIP last week not because they want UKIP to be elected, but because they want some of the policies that it raises to be addressed, and they are looking to us to do that. It is wrong for Members on either side of this House to reject UKIP supporters, and it sends out a message that the political class is not listening. Gillian Duffy stated the case well in the 2010 general election, and we ignore it at our peril. I therefore respectfully ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr Speaker to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), to which I have added my name, so that we can have an opportunity to vote on it next week.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Is it not rather churlish of the hon. Gentleman to make such references, as the Government have been considerably more generous than the Labour Government were in 13 years in office in affirming a 0.7% rate of gross domestic product for international development, which is more generous than almost any other country, yet the hon. Gentleman stands up and—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is hoping to speak later. He must save something to tell the House.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not looked at the record, because in fact we tripled the aid budget, made a commitment to the 0.7% target and, indeed, made a commitment to a law on 0.7%, which this Government have done, too, but have not put into practice.
The Government will get full credit from me if they meet the 0.7% aid target, but given the revelations on the underspend and the fantasy figures elsewhere in the Budget, why should we accept their assurances? There is another serious consequence of the underspend. We already know the stark facts that the OBR has halved its growth forecast for this year, and downgraded its forecast for next year. Since the comprehensive spending review in 2010, the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with 5.3% predicted at the time. The economy shrank 0.3% in the last quarter, and we now face the stark prospect—although I seriously hope not— of a triple-dip recession, which is why this forced underspending is deeply irresponsible, as by itself it could further hasten a slip into a triple dip, particularly in the absence of serious measures in the Budget to promote growth.
It is our constituents who will face the consequences, the unfairness and the hardship over the coming months, such as the nearly one in 10 young people locally in Cardiff South and Penarth who now have to claim jobseeker’s allowance and to do so, as I mentioned earlier, for longer. The number of those claiming for 12 months or more is up by 22.6%. Each month of that is another month of frustration, anger, hardship, wasted talent and wasted value. Others affected are the constituents whom I met in the east of Cardiff, who have lost their jobs in the construction industry because of this Government’s failure to deliver infrastructure or housing, the disabled couple in Grangetown who fear the bedroom tax, while they see millionaires offered a spare home subsidy and a tax cut worth £100,000, and the hundreds of people fighting for every job vacancy—other hon. Members have described the situation—such as those fighting for a job vacancy in Penarth and in other local businesses.
There could not be a starker representation of the Chancellor’s and the Prime Minister’s Britain than the staggering rise of food banks, which have seen an eye-watering 198% increase in use in Wales in just the past year. No wonder the Prime Minister wants to keep the cameras away on his visit. The reasons for people in Wales having to use food banks say it all: 43% of people going to a food bank say they are doing it because of benefit delays or changes, 25% are doing it because they are on low income, and 10% are doing it because they are in debt. So we see debt rising at the top and debt rising at the bottom. That is life in Tory and Lib Dem Britain.
This Government could have driven forward decisions on infrastructure instead of leaving only seven out of 576 projects completed. They could have used the funds from the 4G auction to pay for new housing. They could have delivered a VAT cut that would have done far more for hard-pressed consumers than small duty cuts, however welcome. They could have invested in jobs and training for our young people, as the Labour Welsh Government have done with Jobs Growth Wales and investment in new apprentices.
As we look outside at the snow today—which, I regret, may mean that I am unable to stay for the closing speeches—and we wonder where the spring is, many of my constituents will be asking the same question on hearing this Budget: when are the sun and the warmth coming back to the economy, faced as they are with the cold wind of this no-change Budget and this no-change Chancellor?
Dr Offord
The young man is 17 years old, and obviously for the past 17 years we have not had a Government who have addressed social issues in our country.
There is no dispute, at least among the serious political parties, that the country has to make difficult financial decisions in order to reduce the deficit. My disappointment is that there are no such proposals coming from Labour Front Benchers. The Labour party’s 2010 election manifesto stated:
“Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”
However, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who is no longer in his place, was recently forced to concede that the cost of housing benefit, at £20 billion a year, is too high. He has also admitted that the Labour party does not have a solution for that. How can they be a credible Opposition if they cannot tell people where they would make cuts?
The most appealing part of the Budget for my constituents is the proposed help to assist people to get on the housing ladder. My constituency is the victim of its own success. Good schools, green spaces and a comparatively low crime rate for London ensure that many people want to move there. Although I certainly welcome them, they put pressure on the availability of the housing stock. My constituents’ children find it hard to buy a property, or indeed to rent one, when they return from university or go to work. We should not forget that not everyone is given a deed of variation by mummy and daddy that allows them to stay in part of the family’s house in places such as Primrose Hill, ensuring that they never have to go to a job interview or get a proper job in order to put a roof over their heads.
Many of my constituents are forced to move away from their family and friends and the places they grew up in. The Help to Buy scheme will help them, because in my constituency there are huge regeneration schemes in progress. The Beaufort Park and Grahame Park regeneration schemes are transforming the landscape of the social rented sector in Colindale, and the Mill Hill barracks site is also providing homes for people in the area. Only this morning—this explains my absence at the beginning of the debate—I met John Morris and the resident representatives of the West Hendon regeneration scheme. It has been a hugely difficult social sector regeneration scheme that was not progressed by the previous Government. Indeed, I suspect the motives of local Labour politicians who want to keep people in substandard accommodation instead of getting homes built. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Mr Morris says that that is disgraceful—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to hon. Members by constituency.
Dr Offord
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that perhaps he would like to see some of the conditions that my constituents experience, and then he can conclude whether the previous Member of Parliament, or indeed some of the Labour councillors, did anything to assist them.