Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. At present, the level of the basic state pension is so far below that of the means test that the first slice of savings is largely offset by means-tested benefits. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has confirmed that whatever detailed proposition we present, the level of the single-tier pension will be clear of basic means-testing, and will therefore reward those who have saved rather than penalising them.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

How long does the Minister think he will get away with these proposals? If a private company decided to do what he proposes to do—take contributions away from people who have paid over the years and give additional pensions to people who have not paid anything—the House would be jumping around with anger. Why does he think he can do that to people who have paid for a second state pension?

[Steve Webb]

If we were doing what the right hon. Gentleman says we are doing, I should be as outraged as he is. However, we are not doing that. Part of our proposition is that all contributions paid to date will be recognised in the new system. At the point of transition, if someone was heading for a pension of £150, £160 or £170 a week, that is what we would pay that person. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks, from a sedentary position, where the money is coming from. We will present our costings in the White Paper, and he will see then that we will find it through less means-testing, among other things.

As for bringing people into the system, successive Governments have, for example, credited women who have spent a period at home with children. Although they have not paid cash, they have contributed, and that should be recognised. I think that that is right, and we are doing the same.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

We need to address the failure to provide adequate housing stock in this country. However, I say to my hon. Friend and near neighbour that the Government’s proposal is not a way to do so. It is not a simple problem to solve.

The crux of the amendment is that if there is suitable accommodation to go into, people should go into it, but just as there is an insufficient number of bigger homes for families, there is an insufficient number of smaller, one-bedroom properties for those groups of people to go into. If we apply the argument that there is no suitable housing for one group of people and we must therefore do something about them, we should also argue that we should not penalise people who are under-occupying if there is no suitable accommodation for them.

The sensible element of the Lords amendment is that the penalty kicks in only if people refuse a suitable property. That is eminently fair. Hon. Members must come to their own conclusions, but I will vote accordingly. I look forward to hearing other contributions to the debate.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

As the House may know, I agree with the Government on many aspects of the Bill and I have not always shared the sentiments of Opposition Front Benchers. I regret that, but I have made my position clear. However, I today wish to speak against the Government on their stance and to support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

I do so because the change that the Government are making is shameful. Anyone who has sat through debates on the Bill will know that the Government’s body language is totally different to that in respect of other measures. They have been forced to take this measure by the Treasury. It goes against all that the Bill tries to achieve, which is to work with the grain of human nature. This proposal, which has been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions, works against that grain.

There are four reasons why Government Members should today save their favourite Front Benchers from the course that the Treasury is making them go down. First, let us imagine that places are available—that we could wave them into existence with a magic wand—and that all the people whom the Government condemn as under-occupying could move. That is the last thing the Government want, because to satisfy the Treasury requirements, the Department has had to enter into the accounts that it will make a substantial saving. If it were possible for people to move—all hon. Members know that it is not—the measure would fail, because it is being introduced not to even out housing, but to deliver a major saving in public expenditure to the Treasury by singling out the group who under-occupy. Therefore, the first reason why I hope Government supporters reject the measure is that it makes no sense.

Secondly, as we have heard, even if people move into the private sector, the total bill to taxpayers will be greater than if they stayed in social housing and were not penalised. The Government risk making the achieving of cuts in public expenditure that much more difficult than it is.

Thirdly, the Government’s proposal strikes against other major Government objectives with which I agree. The Government say that the reform is aimed at strengthening families and building stronger communities, but this move sticks a dagger into both those objectives. It will affect parents in families that have broken up and wish children to come and stay, and people who have carers rather than entering permanent care. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said in his fine speech, people might snore. How many marriages have been saved because one partner who snored could move into another bedroom? These details do not appear in public accounts details but they appear in real life. If this measure passes, far from strengthening families and enabling them to relate to and visit one another more easily, it will make it more difficult, and it might well drive out of the community upstanding citizens who play a much wider role, in the most difficult circumstances, in trying to beat the yob culture that engulfs them.

There is a fourth reason I speak and wish Members, particularly on the Government Benches, to vote against the Government and save their own Front Benchers. The Government know that I do not accept all their poverty data, but they do not have the courage to come out, as I want them to do, and declare on that—perhaps one day they will find that courage. I do not think that the poverty data properly measure whether people are benefiting from the general rise in living standards that has occurred for generation upon generation in this country. Harold Macmillan said that the poor should benefit from rising living standards. One way of ensuring that they do so is to give them the freedoms that I and other hon. Members have—those small differences in life that so improve its quality. Having a spare bedroom with which to offer hospitality to family and friends can make such a difference to the quality of one’s life.

The Government know that they are going against a valuable tradition dating back to the Macmillan era. This is not a welfare reform measure. It will be a recruiting sergeant for the money lenders and will be looked on as an eviction measure. Given that the DWP cannot save itself from this terrible measure, forced on it by the Treasury, I hope that Government Members will save the Department from pushing through this nasty, mean little measure. I hope that the House will send a clear message to the House of Lords that, even if we do not win tonight, they should keep up the fight and send it back until there are enough Government Back Benchers to save the Department from this shabby little folly.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on this issue and the issue of welfare reform generally. I have read what he has written for many years. I have some sympathy with what he and other colleagues have said, and with the amendment, and I have some specific concerns that I would like to put to the Government and on which I look forward to receiving clarification from the Minister.

First, however, I want to welcome the fact that the coalition Government have already put aside funds in the comprehensive spending review for severely disabled people who need carers either for 24 hours or overnight. I am glad of that. It was in the Lib Dem manifesto, and I am glad that it is being delivered by the coalition Government.

I have four concerns about the amendment, however, on which I seek reassurance from the Minister. The first is straightforward and concerns foster carers and social housing, about which one of my colleagues talked earlier. I would like the Minister to clarify exactly how the Government will manage the periods during which foster carers have one spare bedroom. Clearly the children of foster carers sometimes move on and there will be a gap before the next child arrives. I would therefore welcome some clarification from the Government of how that will be managed.

Secondly, a number of my disabled constituents, such as wheelchair users, have had extensive adaptations in their homes—I am thinking of one particular individual, in Langney—which have made a considerable difference to their lives. It took probably two or three years to get the work done in that case, and it would frankly be daft to move that individual out of her home because of the one-bedroom rule; the local authority has already spent £10,000 on those adaptations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I will probably not be able to cover all the questions that have been raised, but I shall pick out some of the key points.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a passionate defence of the spare room, referring back to the days of Macmillan and to the principles of the welfare state. I know that he is often a champion of welfare reform, and I listen carefully to what he says, but I find it difficult to justify maintaining 1 million spare rooms in the social rented sector when large numbers of families are living in temporary accommodation and in accommodation that is too small for them. I do not believe that the spare room is a luxury that the social rented sector can afford at the expense of children living in temporary rented accommodation. Fundamentally, that is what this change is about.

[Mr Field]

But it is not about that, is it? If the Government are going to deliver to the Treasury the moneys that they say they are going to save, that will depend on people not being able to react in the way that the Minister is describing.

[Chris Grayling]

As I keep saying, that is not the case. At the moment, local authorities up and down the country are paying out large amounts of money; the right hon. Gentleman should talk to his own local authority about the challenges and costs of providing temporary accommodation. We depend so heavily on temporary accommodation partly because of the failings of the previous Government, going back 10 or 15 years, in the construction of social rented housing. I remember looking at the figures in the early part of the last decade. Had the Blair Government continued to build social housing at the same rate as the Major Government, we would have seen something like 300,000 more families in social rented accommodation. The fact is, however, that they did not. This was not a priority for them when they took office in 1997, and they cut back on construction. Today, we are living in extraordinarily difficult times, financially, and we are dealing with the consequences of the decisions that were made 15 years ago.

[Mr Field]

We are not interested in the Blair Government or the Brown Government; the electorate decided that they should come to an end. We are interested in what this Government are doing. Does the Minister not accept that if people followed his advice and moved into the private sector, far from saving the amount spent on housing benefit, such a move would actually increase it?

[Chris Grayling]

I simply do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about people’s behaviour and about the cost of temporary accommodation. We as a nation are housing in extremely expensive temporary accommodation large numbers of people who can and should be housed properly. At the same time, we are supporting 1 million empty bedrooms in the social rented sector. My colleagues and I believe that we simply cannot afford to do that at this moment in time. This is not the world of 15 years ago. We have come into government with empty coffers, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) always reminds us. We are having to take tough decisions, some of which we might wish that we did not have to take, and we are trying to take them in as fair a way as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) asked about foster carers. The foster carers of this nation are to be enormously admired for the work that they do, and I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue. In putting in place discretionary funding, we have focused specifically on those people. On the status of a foster child, the approach that we are taking is not to treat foster children as members of the foster carer’s household in the calculation of the appropriate amount of housing benefit. That is because we are treating them in a different way. It is consistent with the current treatment of foster children in housing benefit assessments for those living in the private rented sector, but we disregard the whole of the foster carer allowance that is given to the foster parents when assessing eligibility for all income-related benefits. That leaves the majority of households who foster substantially better off, so the payment is made through the foster care support system in order to ensure that the family has sufficient resource to make money available for support to cover the costs of those children.

The whole point of making discretionary money available is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) said, that there are of course situations where there is a gap in a foster child’s presence in a household. When the money is not coming in, we need to use discretionary funding to ensure that the family is appropriately and properly supported. We do not want to see foster carers forced out for the very good work they do; it is really important that we provide them with support.

In the last few seconds available to me, let me say again that a spare bedroom is a valuable asset. Taxpayers’ money is already being used to provide accommodation at social sector rents, averaging £79 a week in England compared with £160 in the private rented sector. Asking the taxpayer to find a further half a billion pounds to enable—

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will talk in more detail about cancer, which is one of the measures we are addressing. I accept that there are anxieties in respect of cancer, but the approach that we are taking to all our reforms, and particularly those relating to sickness and disability, is that we should not write off automatically any individual with a particular condition. Applying a one-size-fits-all measure to any one condition is the wrong thing to do.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The Minister initially said that the Government are introducing their measures because they need to save money on the welfare Bill, but he also said—I hope there is great support in the House for this—that their measures will shape behaviour. Are the national insurance measures designed to shape and change behaviour, and in what way will they do so, or are they merely just to save money? In other words, is the Minister doing what the Treasury has required him to do on national insurance?

[Chris Grayling]

The important thing about that measure is that we must have a welfare system in which people have confidence. The principle of our proposal reflects the principle used in the jobseeker’s allowance system—people should get something back for what they have contributed, but not indefinitely. The Government’s measures simply seek to extend that principle to the group on ESA.

[Mr Field]

I do not think there is any agreement on that. Is it not possible to honour national insurance contributions and attach “seeking work” requirements?

[Chris Grayling]

The principle I described is a long-standing one that has been applied to other benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance. It is important to state that the Government are not taking benefits away from people who have no other form of income, or from people in the support group who need long-term, unconditional help. The measure simply affects those in the work-related activity group. It applies to them the same principle that exists in jobseeker’s allowance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Of course it is not. We are saying that somebody should not be able to claim a benefit for the first time having not lived in the United Kingdom for many years. That is the argument that we put to the European Court, and it is a principle that we stand by. I emphasise that that is one of the reasons, but by no means the only reason, why we are taking this measure.

[Mr Frank Field]

Has the Minister talked to the Secretary of State about this? Would a more logical position not be that we get exemptions from the European Court ruling, and not distort our social security system to fit the European Court’s decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

I would love to secure a more pragmatic and sensible approach to the regulation of social security in Europe. I have been working on it for the past 18 months with my counterparts in other member states, and I hope that we will make progress as soon as possible. Right now, however, we must obey European case law as delivered to us by the European Court—much as it sometimes might be frustrating to do so.

I have a couple of technical points to make before I finish. As a result of providing for the new category of entitlement, in respect of claimants whose health has deteriorated to such a degree that they are placed in the support group—I referred to this earlier in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg)—it has been necessary to remove the substance of the ESA youth time-limiting measure from the original clause 52 and to insert it in clause 51 via a new subsection in section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The Opposition amended that new subsection by changing the period of the time limit from 365 days to a period to be prescribed of at least 730 days. That is Lords amendment 19. As a result, the House will need to agree to amendment 19 but with an amendment consequential upon the rejection of the other amendments providing for entitlement to ESA to be for 730 days rather than 365 days. This will restore the Government’s intention.

A similar complexity surrounds amendment 22, which was voted for in the other place and which ensures that no new claims can be made under the youth provisions in the future—in effect, from whenever that provision is commenced by order. This amendment would amend clause 52 by removing the substance of ESA youth time limiting, which is now included in clause 51, but would retain the key provision in clause 52 preventing new ESA youth claims from being made.

I am afraid that this position is further complicated by the fact that also in the other place amendment 23 was not pushed to a vote and therefore also stands part of the Bill. Amendment 23 effectively allows claims to be made to contributory ESA under the youth provisions for those that are placed in the support group. We therefore now have two conflicting clauses for conditions relating to youth. Finally, if amendment 23 were to be accepted, it would reduce the expected cumulative benefit savings by around £17 million by 2016-17—savings that would need to be found elsewhere in the benefits system.

In the light of these arguments—the urgent need to address the fiscal deficit we have inherited and the need to deliver principled reform to our welfare state—I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers say that there is no need to worry because means-tested ESA will still be there, but if a partner is earning £7,500 a year, no means-tested support will be provided at all.

In the other place, Baroness Hayter quoted a letter from a 59-year-old man currently on contributory ESA who has worked and paid into the system since he was 15—that is, for 44 years. Now, when his health is failing, he will be left on the poverty line. He draws the obvious conclusion—this picks up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier—saying:

“It would be better if my wife stopped working then perhaps I could claim income-related ESA—just like any person who has never worked”.

That is the position that this change is putting people in. The Government say they want to reward work; with this measure, they are scrapping the reward for work.

[Mr Frank Field]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, perhaps he could dwell on that point. The Government rightly say that this Bill is about changing and shaping behaviour, and for all of us in this House, it is important to know that this year we will probably crash through the £200 billion mark. Anybody who thinks that that does not affect people’s behaviour is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, what message is this Bill sending out, when those who have provided and paid their contributions will get no benefits if there is any other income in their house, whereas those who have not played by the rules—who have decided that they will coast it on the back of taxpayers—get rewards?

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the message that this measure is sending to people in that situation is, “You’ve wasted your time.” Indeed, that is the case not only if they have a partner with an income, but if they have any savings. If they have more than £16,000 saved, there will be no means-tested support at all.

Members need to be clear about what the Government will be doing if they get their way. Under this measure, people who are in the middle of a health crisis will be plunged into a financial catastrophe. People who have worked and paid into the system all their lives—people who have, as my right hon. Friend says, done the right thing—will find that the system is not there to help them when they need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The impact assessment states that the provision

“puts those previously eligible for ESA ‘youth’ on an equal footing with others who have to satisfy the relevant National Insurance conditions before they qualify for contributory ESA, which will create a simpler system”.

It will not put them on an equal footing. They have been unable to work since before they had a chance to work, or at least to build up two years of contributions, as my hon. Friend points out. They have had no chance to build up their contributions, and they are therefore at a disadvantage, compared with everybody else. Attempting to justify the proposal—in frankly Orwellian terms—as a simplification really takes the biscuit. We are talking about a small group—15,000 people—who have never had a chance to build up a contribution record. It is right that they should be treated differently. A little complexity is necessary for fairness.

It is worth looking at how much money the Government will save by overturning this amendment. It involves a fair amount of contributory ESA —Ministers in the other place said £70 million. However, many of those young people—the Minister said it would be 90%—will be entitled to income-related benefit if they lose their contributory benefit. Furthermore, the amendment from the other place is very narrow. It applies only to the support group—that is, those who the Government accept should be protected from ESA time-limiting. The net annual saving from this spiteful cut will be about a quarter of the amount that the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will hand out in executive bonuses this year. It will be less than £10 million a year.

[Mr Frank Field]

When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) asked a question about a 20-year-old living at home, we did not get an answer. I was just wondering whether my right hon. Friend was trying to find out the answer by osmosis. At what point will disabled young people qualify in their own right for means-tested support, as opposed to having a household means test applied to them?

[Stephen Timms]

I also noted that the Minister did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South the assurance that she was seeking. My understanding is that any other income in the household, from any source, contributes to the household income, and the benefit for the disabled young person is therefore removed, pound for pound. My hon. Friend was seeking an assurance that some other provision would be put in place to safeguard the young person, but the Minister was unable to give her such an assurance, because I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. No such provision appears in the Bill at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

When their child benefit stops.

[Mr Frank Field]

It is at 19.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is prompting the Minister with the answer. We will look carefully at the detail of the proposals. Presumably, they are going to appear in regulations; they are certainly not in the Bill. It is helpful that the Minister has told us that, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of people who have a million pounds can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[Mr Frank Field]

Are not Government Members mistaken on this? We are talking about the existing rules, which encourage parents to put away money—they might have found it difficult to do so—for an endowment for a very disabled child. They will now find that their carefulness in not playing the system but trying to seek independence for their offspring will be penalised by the rules, which they could never have foreseen.

[Stephen Timms]

That is absolutely right; that is how the Government are changing the system. Disabled young people, in recognition of their particular circumstances, have been assured since the 1970s—under Governments of both parties—of an independent income from the state. This Government are taking it away from them. As a result of this change, they will lose that security in exchange for very little saving at all to the Exchequer. The Child Poverty Action Group points out that the current arrangement helps

“young disabled people who may be vulnerable to forming unsuitable relationships, or may avoid forming a suitable relationship due to fears about losing an independent income”,

as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) correctly said. The current arrangements give the chance of a more secure and independent life to people who would, through absolutely no fault of their own, find that very difficult otherwise. At less than £10 million a year, that is a price worth paying for the independence of severely disabled young people. I urge the House to reject the Government motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field]

If I may, I shall make one comment on the previous contribution. I thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was going to go a stage further: might there not be a connection between the number of newcomers coming here to work and the extraordinary rise in rents in some parts of the country? That also needs to be introduced to our debate today: we cannot run a welfare policy if we have an open-door policy as well.

Those on the Treasury Bench are having, they think, a good day, but if they look behind them they will see that all their supporters are newcomers to the House returned at the last election, except for two Members. There is no reason why those supporters, who have been enjoying themselves so much today, should know where we will be this time next year, or a little later. Some time next year, the Bill and, we are told, universal credit will come into operation. It might be that when those two things hit the tarmac Government Members will hope that Opposition Members show a little more foresight and consideration for those on the Treasury Bench than Government Members have shown this afternoon. My guess is that there will be two God-almighty catastrophes hitting this country. The constituents of Government Members will be at their surgeries and Government Members will be baying for blood. The tables turn in this game.

I want to make three quick points, if I may. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that I do not have their confidence that these measures will be implemented smoothly, neither universal credit nor the proposals before us. A lot of people will be in transition. Whatever the arrangements, there will be hurt, and they will make that hurt felt in the constituencies of Government Members, as well as in our constituencies.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Field]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am going to be brief.

On the insurance principle, those on the Treasury Bench prayed in aid the public being behind them on the measure. Indeed, the public are behind them on that, but the public are against them on the first group of amendments, which we pushed through. Obviously, the Treasury gave a total that the Department for Work and Pensions had to save from the benefits bill. The truth is that we will never get past the stage of picking on weaker people until we are prepared also to look at stronger people. Why is it that, somehow, the benefits of people in my position—those who are part of the baby boom who have done really well out of this country over the years—are never looked at? Why are we frightened to look at the concessions that, for example, people over retirement age receive as universal benefits?

If we are not to go down this track again—the biggest growth in the budget over the past 20 years is in the transfer payments that we are, in effect, discussing today—we must be a little braver and much more open about those areas that we think should be questioned, rather than having a diet of the sort that has been served up to us today.

On the £26,000 a year cap, are there not lessons for Members on both sides of the House to learn? One is that the Government’s proposals are unbelievably crude. I hope that they will adopt our proposals before they go much further in this reform programme. To my own side, I say that I do not want people to think that it is only out in the sticks that people think £26,000 is a high cap. People in London who work think £26 k is high.

We should not make policy because odd people have talked to us in the street, but yesterday, a couple of blocks from here in Strutton Ground, a window cleaner said to me, “Frank, I start at 4 o’clock in the morning. I wish I could get a guaranteed £26,000 for my efforts.” There are lessons for both those on the Treasury Bench and the Opposition.

My final point has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who probably knew that I was going to make it and so has disappeared. We have had a nationwide housing benefit for more years than I can remember, and one lesson I have drawn is that landlords are very clever at turning whatever we think of as a cap into a floor. Obviously we want to meet people’s rents where possible, although they do not have a right in the long run to live somewhere irrespective of what the rent is, but can we run a housing benefit system while having a free market in rents? My suggestion, drawn from the decades I have been in this House, is that the two are incompatible if we are trying to protect taxpayers.

I hope that those three points have been useful. Given that in a year’s time those on the Treasury Bench will want some sympathy from us when they are operating these measures, it might be rather gracious if they looked more favourably on the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), which would make their reforms better rather than worse.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who always provides the House with a thoughtful contribution. It is important to state that the number of newly elected Government Members shows that we were elected on a promise to get to grips with the welfare state. I represent a constituency where the average wage is very low, yet the jobs created there over the past few years have been taken predominantly by hard-working people from eastern Europe. I think that there is something completely wrong with the system if I can meet people on the streets in Llandudno and Llanddulas who tell me that they are better off not taking employment. There is a passion for these changes on the Government Benches, a passion for change that will allow people to do the right thing with their lives and take a job.

I am intrigued and disappointed to see that not a single Labour Member from Wales is in the Chamber to discuss this issue, and I think that I know why. It is because time and again Government Members have asked the shadow Secretary of State to tell us whether his proposed regional cap is for an increase in London, with no change in the rest of the country, or for a reduction in other parts of the country. I do not know a single Labour Assembly Member, councillor or MP who has advocated a lower cap in Wales than in the rest of the country, so it is pretty clear to me that the concept of a regional variation is based on increases in expensive parts of the country but no reductions elsewhere. The Labour party has provided no financial information on its proposal.

I am all in favour of debate on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made the point extremely well that there is an argument to be had about the regional variation in pay and benefits, but it is completely unacceptable for the Opposition to turn up with a proposal that is uncosted, untested and, in my view, intended to get the Labour party off the hook rather than contribute to any change. I do not consider myself to be a cynic on this matter, but I wonder why, when the Chancellor highlighted in the autumn statement the possibility of looking at regional pay, the Labour party attacked the proposal, yet it is now looking at proposals for a regional cap, as logically a regional benefit system must follow. I can only conclude that the difference is that benefit recipients are not union members, but public sector workers are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to clarify an important aspect of the current situation. More than half of parents within the CMEC system would like to make their own arrangements—they positively want to do that—if they had the right support in place, but they do not have that support. They see the CMEC and the Child Support Agency as the only option open to them, and that cannot be right. It cannot be right that we are not doing more to support families so that they can take responsibility and do the right thing.

[Mr Frank Field]

Is not the really big change that we are discussing the fact that when the CSA was first established, the maintenance moneys went to the Treasury to offset what taxpayers were putting up because, generally speaking, fathers were not prepared to do so, whereas now that money remains with the family? Is it not reasonable, in such circumstances, if people are going to get a top-up to their benefit that they should contribute to the cost of gaining that extra money? On the timing, should we not charge people once they are getting the money, not before?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right. Indeed, back in 1991 when the Child Support Agency was initially put in place, some £400 million of savings were attached to it because there was a pound-for-pound withdrawal of maintenance and the welfare benefits that an individual received.

Benefits Uprating

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the employment Minister, has quite categorically stated that Britain does not believe in benefit tourism, and that we will do all we can to prevent it.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the Minister’s partial statement today will in the next couple of years result in decreasing the incentive to work? If the Treasury believed in localism and had given the £6.6 billion to the Department to spend on uprating as it wished to, would not the Minister have made a statement today that increased work incentives rather than decreased them?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will be aware that the reward for working comes from a combination of factors, one of which is the tax burden on the low-paid, and that this Government have twice increased the personal tax allowance by about £1,500. That is worth more than £300 a year for a standard rate taxpayer and, for two members of a couple in low-paid work, is a £600 gain with more to come. That is a real reward for working which all too often they have not had in the past.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Conservative Members may not be able to understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but Labour Members clearly comprehend it. The Government have given us a target for when they will have paid off the structural deficit—we are into different territory. I was hoping that my hon. Friend might tease out from the Government how much of the overall changes they are making to the social security budget will bear on women compared with on men and women.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very important point. This all bears on the fact that, for all the talk, the Government do not understand the difference between a deficit and a national debt. That is pretty clear from our discussion so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont]

To make the position clear to the hon. Gentleman, we are proposing savings of £20 billion. The Government are proposing savings of £30 billion. These savings will come into effect from 2016. No sensible Opposition or indeed Government would set out a spending plan for the next Parliament five years before it would come into effect. If the hon. Gentleman considers his position to be credible, the difficulties that the Liberal Democrats are facing become a little easier to understand.

[Mr Frank Field]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it goes beyond cheek for a Liberal Democrat to question what we might be saying to the electorate in the next Parliament when that party signed an agreement a year ago and is happily voting in support of the Government Bill tonight?

[Gregg McClymont]

My right hon. Friend again makes a telling point. The Liberal Democrats signed a pledge on tuition fees which they immediately went into government and trashed, yet they want the Labour party to tell them what the spending plans of a future Labour Government would be five years down the line. As my right hon. Friend says, that is pure cheek.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a marked contrast to the start of the flexible new deal under the previous Government when providers went for weeks and weeks without people being referred. I am very encouraged by the start of the Work programme and by the response of providers, which are contractually obliged to provide minimum levels of support to people who are referred. As far as I can see, that is precisely what is happening: support is starting and is working well. There are courses, support and learning taking place up and down the country.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Should we hold out much hope for the Government’s Work programme if the Government are not successful in meeting their immigration target?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of migrant labour on many occasions. It is a challenge for Work programme providers to make sure they can deliver a work-ready work force to potential employers in areas such as his constituency to take advantage of the excellent opportunities that exist in companies such as the Contact Company, for example, which I visited recently. I strongly believe that if providers get local workers ready for the work force, they will be taken up eagerly by local employers.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern, but life expectancy has risen among all groups. I recognise also that some groups in certain parts of the country have a lower life expectancy—in pockets of the country, definitely—given the type of work they have done. The point is that, in setting and looking at pensions as we have done historically, that is one thing; the other thing is to look at the people in those conditions and ask, “Why is that the case?”

Surely we need to deal with the issue through public health policy, through the way in which we educate people and through the work experience and training that they receive, rather than by trying to do so through differential pensions. Importantly, if we tried to deal with it through pensions, we would be in the invidious and almost terrible position of telling one group of people that they were retiring at a set age and another group, “You’re better than them, you retire at a later age.” That would be an inequality and would be unfair generally, so the hon. Lady is right that there is an issue, but it is not right to deal with it through the pensions age; it is right to deal with it through public health policy.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State has told the House, and there is no reason to doubt him, that his proposals are based on fairness, it is reasonable to assume that before the Bill completes its passage we will see some changes to the way in which it treats women.

May I question the Secretary of State on a wider point, however? The Bill sets in motion measures not simply to equalise the state retirement pension age for men and women, but to increase it. Does he not accept, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) has previously said, that people who enter the labour market early are usually those who live the shortest in retirement? Would it not be fairer for the Government to base eligibility for the state retirement pension not on a person’s age but on their contributory years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) have raised the issue in the past. I recognise their background, great experience and genuine sense of a need to try to figure out a solution. I am always willing to listen to argument and debate that, but my concerns are twofold: first, I am not certain that we have the data going back far enough to be able to make the calculation, although I might be wrong; and, secondly, I return to the point that in the past we have not done things in that way, because it is very difficult to set out differential pension retirement ages for different groups. We are going to equalise provision for women and men, but now the debate is about breaking them apart, and that would lead us into all sorts of debates about unequal retirement ages.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Frank Field]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect, I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will take an intervention from his right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, but this is a complicated and fraught area that we should not necessarily deal with in the Bill. Beyond it, I am willing to hear more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am going to make a little progress. We have more time, and I will give way to other Members later.

[Mr Frank Field]

Will the Secretary of State give way on this very point?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I wish to make a few points, then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman again. I think I have been reasonably generous, and I plan to continue to be.

As I said earlier, if we delayed the change as the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) suggests, it would cost us something in the order of £10 billion. That would be an unfair financial burden, and it would be borne disproportionately by the next generation. In a country in which 11 million of us will live to be 100, we simply cannot go on paying the state pension at an age that was set early in the last century. We have to face up to that, and to the cost and affordability of state pensions, in all the changes that we make.

If the last Government had managed to get re-elected they would be facing much the same decisions. I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly. I hear the specific concern about a relatively small number of women, and I have said that I will consider it. I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right, and we will. Some have called for us to delay the date of equalisation of the pension age, but I wish to be clear again that this matter is the challenge of our generation, and we must face it. That is why we are committed to the state pension age being equalised in 2018 and rising to 66 in 2020. That policy is enshrined in the Bill.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I repeat that the Bill that we have presented on Second Reading will retain the dates that we announced, but as I said earlier, I will quite happily discuss transitional announcements with anyone who wants to do so. I do not rule out discussions, but we plan to press ahead with the dates that I set out at the beginning of the process.

[Mr Frank Field]

The Secretary of State keeps insisting that he wishes to be fair, but the country increasingly thinks that he is being unfair to a particular group of women. The Opposition are not saying that his Department should not deliver the savings set out, but we are suggesting that they could be delivered in a different way. If he wishes to treat men and women equally, so that they make an equal sacrifice for the contribution that he has to make to the Exchequer, would it not be fairer to raise the state retirement age for both and women more quickly rather than collect £2 billion from a particular group of women?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think I have already covered that ground. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I will not repeat what I have already said, because I do not think the House would appreciate that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The other policy that we will be introducing later in the summer is work academies, which will provide a mix of a short-term segment of training and a period of work experience, again designed to provide young people with a first foothold in the workplace and to give opportunities to those who do not have previous qualifications with a view to trying to get them into employment and build a lasting career.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Minister on his statement today and on his announcement that the new Work programme comes into force around now? Does he accept, however, that at a time when there is a shortage of jobs, the new providers might well be placing in jobs those who find it easiest to get jobs anyway, and that we need a back-up scheme to ensure the involvement of those who find it most difficult to get jobs or who do not want to work? Will he keep his mind open about reintroducing at some stage the future jobs fund—not that he will do so under that name, but under a Tory name?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do accept that there is a challenge in placing some people into work, which is why we have created a differential pricing structure to reflect the challenge of getting them into the workplace. The problem with the future jobs fund was the cost relative even to the outcome costs of other programmes run by the previous Government. Of course, in straitened financial times we have to seek not only what works in employment terms but what is affordable.

Welfare Reform Bill (Instruction)

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Let me add two brief comments to our debate today. The first is directed towards the Liberal Democrats, as I read in the papers that social mobility is an issue that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to take under his wing. I feel in a good mood, so may I offer them some advice? We in this House might know what social mobility means, but if my constituents are anything to go by, nobody out there knows what the hell the Government or the Liberal Democrats are going on about when they talk about social mobility. My constituents all understand the phrase “life chances” and whether the Government have a strategy in place to ensure that every child in this country has a chance to get a better job than their parents, but if we continue to talk about social mobility, they turn the volume down or switch off. Although I do not mind facing the electorate in such circumstances, the policy is too important to allow the Government or the Liberal Democrats to continue to go over the top, shouting language that neither supporters nor enemies can understand.

[Jenny Willott]

I completely understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. We would all agree that the phrase does not mean very much to most people, but given that it is the jargon that has been used for many years by Governments of all colours, can he suggest a phrase that would be more helpful and productive and that people would understand?

[Mr Field]

Quite honestly, when we resume debate on the Bill, I would favour the phrase “life chances and poverty” or calling the commission the poverty and life chances commission, because poverty is the aspect that we are trying to break.

That brings me to the second, perhaps slightly more substantial point that I would like to contribute to today’s debate. When the Prime Minister asked me to conduct and submit a report to him about the foundation years, there was concern on the Opposition Benches that the huge intellectual and political efforts and the resources that the Labour Government had put into trying to tackle and finally abolish child poverty might somehow be dissipated, as though that report would be used as some terrible smokescreen. What is so good about today’s debate is that the discussion has moved on from there. I cannot emphasise enough how much I welcome that. However, I want to suggest that building up the foundation years should become a goal, so that a first building block in any strategy would be for many more children to start their first day of education better able to benefit from that education, rather than have primary schools spending most of their efforts doing rescue work. That has not occurred before. If the Government are concerned with that objective, and also with Labour’s commitment to abolishing child poverty by 2020, initially, in the short run, there is no conflict.

I draw the House’s attention to a report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that was published a couple of years ago. It looked at what ways are open to the Government if they are serious about reducing the number of children in child poverty as Labour defined that in the 2010 Act. There is a medley of ways, but the one that held the greatest prospect for the quickest advances was building up high-quality child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, if that were in place, many more parents would make the effort to take themselves out of poverty.

In a not-so-recent letter to the Chancellor, I asked him whether he will make a decision soon on the recommendation in my report. I asked him not to increase automatically benefit rates for children, but to see whether some of that money, in some years, could be better spent on building up the foundation years, as we call them in my report. Clearly, if some of that money were transferred from future years into building up high-quality child care, and if we avoided cutting such provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, more children might be ready to benefit from their full-time education from their first day of school onwards. That is the best move the Government can make to reduce the number of children in poverty, year by year.

I rose to welcome the measure, which takes the debate forward. Hon. Members can get excited about it, but if the Government are serious about talking to our voters, they need to drop the term “social mobility” and come up with a phrase that we can all understand.

State Pension Reform

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend says, people want certainty about the future. We have said that we must move rapidly in respect of those reaching the age of 66. However, the new mechanism is designed not just to make changes more automatic, but to provide notice periods. Young people will not have that certainty, because life expectancy is always changing, but as people approach the state pension age, we want to be able to give them more certainty. That is part of our plans.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is difficult to think of any statement that could be more important than one that commits a Government to paying a state pension above means-tested assistance level. The importance of this statement—which I welcome—stems from the fact that the income of many pensioners is below that level. Even if we take into account those who do not claim means-tested help, a large price tag will be attached to this reform. Will the Minister consider the contribution made by taxpayers through pension tax relief, which favours the wealthy over those who earn least, as one way of financing it?

[Steve Webb]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the proposed system. It will be financed on a cost-neutral basis within the system: we will spend less money on means-testing and, for instance, savings credit, we will withdraw some of the very small payments that we currently make to people who do not even live in this country, and we will remove some of the highest accruals for the highest earners. We therefore do not need to involve tax relief. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have refined the previous Government’s plans, so tax relief will be less concentrated on the highest earners, but we have no further plans to change tax relief.