Fuel Duty
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is not just those who have a car who will be paying for this policy—although they will be paying the most—and it is not just those who rely on a van for their business or work to get around who will be paying; everyone will be paying, whether they use the bus or are just going to the shops. The truth is that everything has to be transported by road in this country. This tax rise will have huge inflationary pressures right across the board, not just for fuel, whether for heating or for road transport, but, as he is right to say, for so many other areas—areas that have not even been considered by the Treasury.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
All my right hon. Friend’s arguments stand, and that was true before the war in Iran. The Prime Minister stood there on Monday saying that the freeze is still in place, but the world has literally changed around us. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this Government are not being reactive and following the change? There will be a big impact and a knock-on effect, and the Prime Minister is touting this policy as though it is new, when it was in the Budget last year.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware that when the fuel price goes up, the Government’s VAT revenues from fuel go up at the same time. They are already seeing hundreds of millions of pounds a year extra in VAT, purely from the fact that the underlying price has gone up. My hon. Friend makes another important point, which is that this is a moment for the Government to reconsider. We on the Opposition Benches opposed this measure at the Budget, because we thought hitting working families was the wrong thing to do, but it is doubly the wrong thing to do when prices are also going up internationally.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she suggests, the tax revenues from reopening the North sea for oil and gas could be spent in a number of ways, but we have to open the North sea—a cost-free and environmentally positive alternative—to obtain those revenues, and then we can consider all the different ways in which Members across the House would want to spend the money.
Since the Labour Government came to office, we have seen just how much they have hit transport across the country. The fuel duty rise of 5p a litre is just the latest example. First they abolished the much-loved £2 bus fare cap, which the Conservatives had pledged at the general election to continue for the entirety of this Parliament: they have put bus fares up by 50%. They have also jacked up airport business rates, by a staggering average of 295%. Who is benefiting from that? Certainly not passengers, certainly not the airlines, and certainly not British business. They have also raised air passenger duty, with passengers facing a 15% jump in one year alone, followed by permanent increases, year after year after year, of between 3% and 4%, just to get on to a plane.
In the last few weeks the Government have raised the price of railcards for the first time since—[Interruption.] Perhaps they would like to chunter about this one. Do you remember this one, guys? We hear nothing from them on this. They have raised those prices for the first time since 2013—the first time for more than 10 years. They have increased the price of senior railcards, veterans’ railcards, young people’s railcards. New taxes on people throughout the country are being raised by this Government. We are seeing a 16% rise for the first time since 2013, and they did not even know about it, because they do not care about young people, about old people, about those who are being affected by the tax rises that will be hitting people all over the country from September onwards.
Labour has also just introduced a new policy that will leave ferry passengers on the Isle of Wight facing bigger crossing charges: £30 more per crossing. That will hit family holidays in the UK, and it will hit people from the Isle of Wight who are just trying to go about their daily lives. Labour is stealthily—
Torsten Bell
I completely agree with the hon. Member that families up and down the country are worried about what they are seeing on their TV screens about the conflict in the middle east—maybe because they know people directly, but also much more universally about the effect on all of us and on their budgets—and they expect a Government who take a sensible approach, meaning that we protect household finances, which I will come to, as well as the public finances. That means taking decisions based on recognising the unavoidable uncertainty about how the future of the conflict plays out.
Torsten Bell
I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will give way soon, because Members have been very patient.
I was coming on to the fact that we are not in the business of delivering regime change from the air, but we do need to de-escalate the conflict and we will play our part in doing that.
Oil and gas prices remain below the peaks they reached in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I do not want to hide the fact that, as we have just discussed, these are significant increases. Oil is up by 40% and gas prices have risen by around 64% since the end of February. The movement in energy markets we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months—exactly as we have just discussed—but the ultimate size of the effects is highly uncertain. What is certain is that in the face of them, this Government will take the necessary decisions to help protect both household finances and, as I was just saying, public finances. I want to make it clear that, given the very real uncertainty, the policy and approach we are taking does give an assurance to households about how we will act.
Dr Luke Evans
That is good to hear. As it is under review, it sounds as if, should there be a change, the Government would look to support the British public, and I support that. Is there some kind of framework that the Government are using to make this decision? Is there a trigger point on fuel prices, or on how long petrol prices remain at that level? This relates to the previous question about budgeting. Are the Government using triggers, or is it just finger in the air and wait and see what happens?
Torsten Bell
I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than at the time of the election, when the Conservatives had a temporary 5p freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. I offer that by way of indication of where we are today.
We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran’s neighbours and relief to households in the UK, who are understandably worried about the effect of the conflict.
Torsten Bell
This Government are showing that we care about the living standards of households up and down the country, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Encouraging all retailers to engage in the fuel finder scheme, which I will come to in a second, is very important. On heating oil, we had heard worrying evidence from people—I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too, from his constituents—about the behaviour of some suppliers.
To further support competition in the market, we are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that petrol stations publish their live prices. That will make it easier for drivers to choose the lowest price. Since the beginning of February, all UK petrol stations have been asked to report price changes for petrol and diesel within 30 minutes.
Almost 90% of retailers have already registered. Last week, officials were instructed to accelerate the integration of fuel finder into major digital map applications, which will make it easier for drivers to use.
This tool sits alongside action to support households who rely on heating oil, as I just touched on. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this week, the Government will provide an additional £53 million of targeted support for the vulnerable households who would struggle to make an up-front lump sum to top up their tanks.
Dr Luke Evans
It sounds as though this support will be provided through the crisis and resilience fund, which replaces the household support fund. The problem is that many more people will not fall within that, despite seeing the price of heating oil double, if not triple—plus doubling the amount they have to order. What support is there for them? If those figures are going from £500 to £1,500 overnight, that will be a huge impact, and they will not get the £35 from the Government.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman is right, at least within England: yes, the funding will be delivered via local authorities, through the mechanism that was the household support fund, which becomes the crisis and resilience fund in a few weeks. We have written to local authorities to make it clear that they do not need to wait for the new fund to be in place and can start making commitments today. The decision on exactly who qualifies as vulnerable sits with local authorities, because one thing we have learned is that different parts of the country have different challenges on this issue.
Torsten Bell
I will make a bit of progress; I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
To reflect the highly uneven geographical spread of heating oil reliance, as highlighted by lots of Members in recent weeks, not least those from Northern Ireland and west Wales, the funding will be allocated on the basis of census data, instead of via usual mechanisms.
I have focused so far on laying out the challenge facing the country and our consistent approach to this conflict, but as this is an Opposition day, it would be rude not to talk a little about the Opposition, who have displayed rank opportunism and incoherence. This week, the Leader of the Opposition has said that she is
“concerned that there isn’t a clear plan behind the strikes”,
which is the opposite of what she has been saying for weeks. She welcomed the strikes and the military action that she now says lacked a clear plan. She called for Britain to get involved in the military action that she now admits lacked clear objectives. She says that her leadership is about consistency, but, on this most important of issues, the whole country can see that she is just making it up as she goes along—a cavalier attitude without a second thought for the consequences for households here in the UK. She does not get to wrap herself up in another country’s flag and play politics with a serious conflict and then pretend she never did so once the consequences for those living in the United Kingdom became clear.
Opportunism is the word for the Opposition on fuel duty, too. For all the froth from the shadow Minister, the truth is that the previous Government did not budget for any extension of the 5p cut—they explicitly said that it was temporary. Here is the truth on the level of fuel duty: through their entire 14 years in office—
Torsten Bell
Wait for it; I am going to come to come to those 14 years. The hon. Gentleman is going to regret saying that. Through the Conservatives’ entire 14 years in office, fuel duty was never lower than it is today. In fact, it was higher than it is today for 80% of the time they were in office.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport, rising costs as a result of instability in the middle east, and the ongoing fuel duty freeze, all have consequences for people who use any form of transport in their daily lives. I agree with the Government—and with the many Back Benchers who have joined in supporting them—that it is far too soon to consider the Conservative motion’s demand for further multiple and ongoing freezes.
The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and the wider middle east is the best way to ease fuel market price rises. The risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse. The Conservatives should consider the consequences before offering their support for any more of President Trump’s appallingly badly thought-out decisions.
Dr Luke Evans
At what point would the Green party feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green Members often say that the Government need to provide more support, but if we cannot de-escalate because this is not our war, how can we support constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and up and down the UK?
Siân Berry
My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned.
Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then.
The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth. The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Luke Evans
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, if someone is using alternative transport, such as buses, they are still affected by fuel duty—even more so. On top of that, the Government have already increased the cost of a bus ticket by 50%, so her argument does not hold water.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If multiple Members are seeking to intervene, please indicate whose intervention you are taking. It makes it easier for the Chair to know whose name to call.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I thought I would give her some further relief from the interventions from the manosphere on the Conservative Benches. She is talking about the importance of investing in clean energy to make our country more resilient and to do the right thing for the planet. Does she agree that doing that is often more cost effective for families as well? Just last week, I met with Fife Communities Climate Action Network in my constituency to talk about some of its great work to encourage and support insulation of people’s homes, for example. Does she agree that that is positive and that investing in clean energy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Has the hon. Lady finished her intervention?
Melanie Ward
Does the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) agree that investing in clean, green, home-grown energy is the way to ensure that we have energy security for our country in the future?
Dr Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to make a point of order about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She labelled the Conservative Benches “the manosphere”. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that it is suitable to use sex as a pejorative just because there happen to be only male Members sitting on the Conservatives Benches at this point in the debate? I would envisage it being a problem if I used such a term the opposite way to label only females sitting on the Labour Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Luke Evans, you have most definitely got your point on the record. Unfortunately, the Chair is not responsible for the language used by Members—if only we were—but you have made your point and it is most definitely on the record. Siân Berry may wish to respond to that or to continue with her speech.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I come here today with a mission. Unfortunately, for the past two years I have not followed closely enough the Labour party’s position on what the Government want to deliver. I have lost track of whether we are talking about pillars, aims, priorities, staging points, milestones or foundations, but at the start of the year the latest reinvention was a mission focused on the cost of living.
That was a slight change from when the Government first took office, because their main aim and their No. 1 priority at that point was to go for growth. Alas, as we have seen, that is not happening—the last figures say growth is 0%. What is more, it was evident that all the Government policies that were being put in place were actually anti-growth, as we are starting to see.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In a pithy sentence, will the hon. Gentleman describe the mission of the Conservative party?
Dr Evans
To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about.
On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.
Melanie Ward
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Conservative policy was in relation to fuel duty at the last election? By my recollection, it was that fuel duty would have been higher under the Conservatives than it is now under this Labour Government.
Dr Evans
The best way to decide how someone is going to behave in the future is to look at their past habits: we froze fuel duty for 15 years, and when a crisis hit in 2022 we reduced it. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when the hon. Lady intervened. The Government have come up with a plan that is a talking shop and not doing anything. In response to the situation in Iran, they have simply reannounced what was in the Budget and further conversations with the CMA and the heating oil firms to work out whether they should or should not do something. That is precisely the point I am making: the rhetoric from the Government was “We are going to go for growth” but they then put in place some anti-growth policies, whereas now the cost of living is the No. 1 priority, but they are simply talking about that and making things worse.
Catherine Fookes
The Government are not just talking about it—we have put £53 million into supporting the cost of heating oil. That is doing something about it. When the Conservatives were in government, they took 200 days to do that.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out because I was the energy PPS in the Home Office at that time, so I saw exactly how that worked, what it looked like and how difficult it is to put measures in place. Let me remind her that the Conservatives made a £200 unconditional payment to anyone who could claim that they were living off grid. That is a stark difference from this Government, who have put aside £53 million for the 1.5 million people across the entire nation who use heating oil because they live off grid—£35 per person. The Government have ringfenced that money, so it will only be available to the houses that are hardest hit, meaning that most households will not get any payment at all. That is the exactly the point I am trying to make: the Government talk a good game, but when it comes to delivery, they are not doing what they say.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making some impassioned points about heating oil. I have a simple question for him: does he believe that the war in Iran increases the cost of heating oil or not, and will he reject the escalation that the Leader of the Opposition has called for in entering that war in the first place?
Dr Evans
Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September.
I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid.
The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance.
Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.
Adam Dance
My constituent Sam works in a local haulage company. He tells me that the average profit margin for a company like his is 2%, while the cost of running a typical lorry has increased by 22%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must support rather than damage this industry that we rely on to deliver essential goods, starting by cancelling the plan to increase fuel duty?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that the fuel duty change will involve about an extra £2,000. On top of that, the change will hit the individual householder or car owner by about £140. The Government talk about making a difference, for example with the warm home discount or freezing energy prices, but those measures will already have evaporated given the very nature of the fuel duty escalation, on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran. People who work in the logistics industry are very susceptible to these fluctuations. It is right that we all want to move to electricity, but that is not going to happen immediately. I do not disagree with many of the arguments about the direction that we need to take, but the question is: what can we do now in the light of the reaction from Iran?
My constituents do not have the choice of walking or getting a bus, because we are a rural constituency and they rely on their cars. This increase will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Let us contrast that with the 14 or 15 years of Conservative Government. That is usually the stock answer we hear from Labour Members. Gosh, 14 years! Yes, for 14 years we froze fuel duty because we recognised the impact it had on our households, on the white van man who is out working, on the delivery driver and on the lady who is driving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna. Those people really need that support, and the change that we made and delivered had an impact.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses, not only in Bridgwater but across the country, were hit last year by the Chancellor’s jobs tax and have been hit this year by the additional burden of the unemployment Act and higher business rates, and that the prospect of higher fuel duty in September is disastrous not just for families who use their car for personal transport but for every small business?
Dr Evans
In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living.
The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work?
The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war?
To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do.
I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.
Mr Charters
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that 5p fuel duty cut at the height of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it was too slow. Will he remind the House of the level that diesel had got to at the pump when the 5p cut came in? Was it two quid? It was far too late, wasn’t it?
Dr Evans
Forgive me; I would be happy to give way again if the hon. Gentleman knows what the value was at that point. I do not know what it was because at the time I was working in the Energy Department trying to help support those households who were struggling and suffering, particularly those who lived in caravan parks, static homes and canal boats, who are off-grid and suffered by the very nature of where they got their fuel. He is right to say that we have to take this in the round. I have heard the Chancellor say that multiple times. How long will this go on? The decision is under consideration. I am not asking about when the decision is made or how to make that decision. This is more about understanding at what point we make those decisions and when the Chancellor decides that it is the right time to step in. It may well be that that decision was too late and that lessons could be learned. How do we know? That is the question I am posing to civil servants and this Government, because the hon. Gentleman’s party is now in charge of setting that out and deciding when is too long and when is too late.
I would argue that the current payment of £53 million is not enough for my constituents. Many of them will not benefit, because they will not be covered by the resilience fund. What the Government have done under the resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is simply delegate the decision making to councils. Under the previous Government, when we were in charge, we chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It is this Government’s job to set out why they are not going to do that.
I would argue that keeping the fuel duty rise in September will create a terribly difficult time for any of us who drive cars or run a business that uses vehicles. Let us not forget that the energy price cap will change in July. The Government have rightly said that it is frozen until then, but the impact on prices will not come through the system until July, so we might well see prices and the price cap rise very quickly in July just as the fuel duty is about to come in in September. We are back to the point made by the knight of the realm, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about this toxic concoction of everything happening at once. I urge the Government to be aware of that and to set out the trigger points and the framework.
Robbie Moore
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not turned up to this debate—a debate on an incredibly important issue that is impacting all of our constituents, including his—in good enough time to make a speech on the fuel duty increase, but wants to turn the debate back to a point that I answered in my response to the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). That point still stands. If the Government increase taxes on the hard-working businesses and individuals across the country who want to drive economic growth in order to benefit only a very few people, they are not providing opportunity for many young people and hard-working families across all our communities.
Dr Luke Evans
Back when we were in government, one of the ways we tried to solve this problem was by changing the universal credit cut-off limit from 63% to 55%, which meant that the more work people did, the more money they kept. That is exactly the way to support people back into work: making sure that they keep more of their own money. That incentivises work, rather than disincentivising it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an ideological difference here? We support work; the other option is just a handout.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. By taxing families and individuals less, we provide them with more money in their pockets and we drive economic growth, as they have more of their own domestic spending power.
This Labour Government want to hit many businesses and individuals with three consecutive fuel duty hikes in a matter of months. If these proposals go ahead, motorists and haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. The road haulage industry is critical to our nation’s economic success: goods are moved around daily, and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services—on companies such as Freightlink Europe. Road freight moves 81% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage.
The Road Haulage Association estimates that a 5p rise in fuel duty will result in a typical motor vehicle-owning household spending an extra £100 each year and increase annual household spending by £1.9 billion, which is a whopping £7.3 billion over the rest of this Parliament. In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden for this Government to put on those households. At a time when the conflict in the middle east is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, it is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty hike.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is late to the debate—we have been around that a few times over the course of the afternoon. The record of the Conservatives in government was to freeze council tax and freeze fuel duty—indeed, we cut it when we saw Russia invade Ukraine in 2022. Conservatives stand on a proud record of keeping fuel duty down, freezing it and cutting it. It is his party that, in government, is going to increase it on hard-working people this very year.
Let us be absolutely clear: this is a tax rise, a regressive tax hitting the poorest the hardest; a deliberate, calculated and, frankly, cynical tax rise phased in carefully in the hope that people will not notice. We have a rise in September—a back to school tax. We have another in December—a Christmas shopping tax. And then, in March, we have a spring clean of people’s wallets. Three moments in the year, three hits to working people.
Dr Luke Evans
It would be remiss of me not to point out that in July the price cap will be reviewed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a decent chance, given what is happening in Iran, that we may well see an increase in energy bills anyway?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a clinically accurate point, and he is absolutely right to do so.
The truth is that the headline figure does not even tell us the full story. This is not just a tax rise; it is a tax on a tax. Fuel duty is applied first and then VAT is charged on top of it. So when the Government increase fuel duty, they are also increasing the VAT paid on that tax—a tax on a tax. That means that what they present as a 5p rise is not really 5p in practice, but closer to 6p at the pump—a hidden double tax built into the system, taking more from every driver, every business and every household.
We saw that argument tested just this weekend. The Energy Secretary was asked directly about the soaring cost of fuel and his instinct was simply to point to global events, external pressures and anything other than the decisions being made here at home in Whitehall. But he was confronted by a simple, undeniable fact: a breakdown of the price of a litre of petrol showed that fuel duty alone accounts for around 38% of the cost and, once VAT is added on top, that more than half of what drivers pay at the pump is tax—more than half.
Let us be clear: this is not simply about international markets or events beyond our control. Of course global factors play a role and of course wholesale prices fluctuate, but when over half the price at the pump is made up of taxes set by this Government, Ministers cannot hide purely behind external circumstances. They cannot blame global markets and ignore their own policy choices. And they certainly cannot claim to be easing the cost of living while actively increasing the tax burden built into every litre of fuel. The consequences ripple through the entire economy. Equally, when prices go up, including at the hands of the Chancellor, crime also rises. Already we are seeing reports from our hauliers across the country of fuel thefts taking place. That is serious.
Fuel is not a luxury; it is fundamental to how the country works. It is how goods get to our supermarkets, how tradespeople get to jobs and how carers reach the most vulnerable. When the cost of fuel rises, the cost of everything else rises—shops feel it, businesses feel it, families feel it—and it is, of course, inflationary. That matters not just for household budgets, but for the public finances. Around a quarter of the United Kingdom’s national debt—some £750 billion—is index-linked, so higher inflation means higher debt interest costs. In other words, this policy risks making the Government’s own fiscal position worse even as it makes life harder for working people.
The question is: what are the Government going to do, and why are they doing this? Why impose higher costs on drivers, businesses and families at a time like this? The answer lies in a failure at the heart of this Government’s approach: they have lost control of welfare spending. Instead of taking the difficult decisions required to ensure that welfare spending is sustainable and properly targeted, they have allowed costs to rise and rise. Now, having failed to grip that challenge, they are asking working people to pick up the bill. We have already seen tax increases on jobs, family businesses, our high streets and our farmers; this is simply the next step. Drivers are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure.
There is a different approach. In government, the Conservatives understood the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses, which is why we cut—I repeat, cut—fuel duty, froze it year after year, and stepped in again when global pressures caused prices to spike. We recognise that Governments do not balance the books by making it more expensive for people to go to work or to set up or operate a business and do not hide tax rises within the price at the pump. No one can create a system where people are taxed twice—once through fuel duty and then again through VAT applied on top—and call that fair. This policy fails the basic tests; it is an unfair tax. We Conservatives will oppose this unfair tax rise, and any Member who cares about what our constituents are paying at the pump will surely vote for our motion tonight.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions throughout the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) in particular for his winding-up, as well as the Tory Whips for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of his support for Liz Truss as PM. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), has just passed me the 10 reasons the hon. Gentleman set out for supporting Liz Truss for PM—I do not know whether that is something he now regrets.
I will turn to the serious matter at hand. We are debating this issue at a time of significant international uncertainty. As the House is aware, we are now in our third week of the conflict in Iran and across the middle east. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our priority will always be the national interest through protecting British nationals and supporting our allies.
This Government recognise that the conflict is not just a matter of foreign policy, and that it also has direct consequences for individuals and families here in the UK. Movements in global energy markets are likely to put upward pressure on inflation, and the longer this conflict continues, the greater the risk it poses to both economic stability and the cost of living in the UK.
That is why the Government are clear that rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases. We are working with our international partners to support efforts to secure key energy routes and guarantee the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. We are also supporting a co-ordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves, the release of which has helped to stabilise international oil markets.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister is right to talk about de-escalation and look to the international side, but, as I raised in my speech, there are domestic factors at play here too. What are the Government doing to set out a timeline to make these decisions and assess their implications so that the country can plan around what may or may not be going on? We do not know how long this will go on. What points are the Government looking at to make and inform their decisions?
Dan Tomlinson
I will come on to talk about fuel duty; I was just setting out the context at the opening of my speech.
The Government’s approach is to focus squarely on the British national interest and the economic interests of British households. The Opposition have clearly taken a different approach, choosing instead at times to egg on military action, focusing more on posturing and trying to get one up on the Government than on looking after our own at home and abroad.
Student Loans
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is an honour to be the final Back-Bench speaker in this debate. I do not feel like I am at the back of the queue; I am just not at the front.
It is good to see some Liberal Democrats with us today. We know that student finance is a particularly important subject for debate in the Liberal Democrat party. In fairness, though, the Vince Cable plan, sometimes also known as plan 2, is not only about the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives were also in government at that time, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We shared responsibility. The whole thing was largely based on the Browne report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government under the other Brown, who somehow managed not to mention it during the course of the 2010 general election. To be fair, the existence of a real interest rate in both the Browne plan and the Cable plan was intended to make the system more progressive. None the less, it has become clear over time that that system needs to change. It has also become clear that, with all the pressures on young people and graduates at the present time, including unemployment, now is not the time to squeeze them further on the repayment threshold.
In the short time available, I will talk primarily about apprenticeships and degrees. In particular, I want to focus on the necessity of concentrating on quality apprenticeships.
Damian Hinds
I will, but I will start by telling my hon. Friend about the lack of quality in some previous apprenticeships. I draw the House’s attention to the 2012 National Audit Office report on adult apprenticeships. I have time for only a couple of very short excerpts. The number of apprenticeships had increased dramatically in the three years up to 2012. The vast majority of apprentices were over 25. One in five apprenticeships lasted fewer than six months. Only one third of apprenticeships were at an advanced level, compared with something like 60% in France. In a separate study, there was the amazing discovery that, at that time, one in five apprentices—and this was to rise even further—did not even know that they were on an apprenticeship, so poor, thin and flaky were those courses.
So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, we reformed the system. First, in 2012 we introduced the minimum length of one year. We then had the substantial package of reforms in 2017 to make sure that there would be 20% of time off the job and to introduce the apprenticeship levy. It included the move from frameworks, which were sort of tick-box standards in many cases, to proper standards that would be designated and designed by employers and would have a proper end-point assessment to guarantee that that person had learned those occupational standards. And yes, of course the number of people on apprenticeships then fell.
The Government amendment says that they want to reverse the decline in apprenticeships under the previous Government. The reality is that the number of apprenticeships first grew like crazy under the previous Government as a result of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and then it came back down following our reforms to make the apprenticeships higher quality and more exacting.
In 2010, the 280,000 figure was still lower than the 340,000 that we achieved in government. Now it looks like the Government are set on restarting that rollercoaster by reducing the standard of apprenticeships.
Andrew Western
I will not because I am short on time—I am sorry.
While I do think that a Liberal Democrat should be wary, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made an important point in his defence of degree courses with which I agree.
The hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) attacked the Government for acknowledging the problems of the system and for saying that we recognise that work is needed, there is much to do, but we will look at it. When we say there is much to do, there are messes left all over the place. What exactly are we talking about? We are talking about a legacy of starved further education funding. The Conservatives oversaw a 40% drop in youth apprenticeships. They drove up child poverty, ravaged Sure Start, scrapped Building Schools for the Future, broke the SEND system—and that is just their legacy for children and young people, before I even get to the fact that they left the NHS on its knees. Their damage, the mess they left, has a long tail, and we must never forget that that damage cannot be fixed overnight.
Dr Luke Evans
Given that the Minister has just listed a great big set of problems facing students, what does he say to students when the Chancellor has said that they are not at the front of the queue?
Andrew Western
What I say is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS and from a range of interventions that this Government are making, but we cannot change everything overnight.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) commented that young people not in employment has rocketed under this Government, which is an interesting take given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but it increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ final few years in office.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). I simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about the rubbishing of the Conservatives’ proposal already done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue, so he will welcome the youth guarantee, the jobs guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people, the revised target of two thirds of young people either in an apprenticeship or at university, and the update to our approach to encourage technical learning while earning. He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at the Conservatives’ record of the past 10 years. I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess they left, but sadly they devastated this system, and it falls to us to resolve the problems they left.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused given the Conservatives have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses and they ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people.
I want to briefly come to the contribution of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), because he is always considered in this area and, indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but it is important to pick up a point he made around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25. I believe that that is a problem in the system. That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that is why—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting—[Interruption.]
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsTuesday 3rd February 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026 View all Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context.
I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister. She put herself through a degree in pharmacy while on universal credit as a single parent of three children. That was not her choice; it was a position that was thrust upon her. What would the hon. Member say to people like her?
Dr Evans
I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve.
The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle.
At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It is not me who is being referred to; it is the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Evans
That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here.
It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves.
The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work. That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.
Joy Morrissey
It is an issue of fairness. The people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages have seen their taxes go up and they are seeing those taxes being given to people who are not working. It is unfair.
Dr Evans
That is exactly right. The public will stand for a generous safety net, but they will not stand for people not trying to take things forward. I worry that, despite this Government’s talk of employment rights, the chances for employment and the working poor, more people are out of work under this very Government due to the choices they are making. That is fundamental to today’s debate, and trying to leverage morality into it misses the reality of responsibility. Every family in this country make fiscal choices and expect to behave responsibly, and so should the Government who lead them. That is the crux of the matter.
In the time I have left, I will move on to the context. If this were a moral crusade, as we have heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget; he would have made that choice. However, as we have heard from other Members, when this policy was put forward after the new Government came in, 40-odd MPs did not vote and seven Labour Members had the Whip removed.
If we are talking about poverty, one thing that has not been raised in the debate so far is the winter fuel payments policy. The Government’s own analysis said that it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty and 100,000 into relative poverty. So there is a dichotomy here, and it is about choices. Government Members seem to say that if we are going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area, yet they all voted to take the fuel payments away—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the other side about means-testing, but that did not happen until later when there was a climbdown.
The key thing is that these are difficult choices that have to be made. I worry that the public see straight through what is going on. They need fairness in the system. They do not need a vote to be held to try to placate the Back Benchers of a failing Prime Minister. If this truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done it straightaway.
Dame Meg Hillier
Let us be clear: this Government came in with a plan to tackle child poverty, but quite rightly set up a taskforce to deal with it under two excellent Secretaries of State, and now with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability at the helm as well. That is why this policy has happened now and did not happen immediately. It would have been a bad mistake to have dealt with this in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, we now have a whole strategy, of which this is a part, as is helping parents into work.
Dr Evans
Why, in that case, was the Whip removed from Labour Members? Why is there no contingency in the Bill to ensure that someone is progressing through the system? We have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House that it is not only a safety net but a springboard. I come back to my point that if the Government want to make a difference, they could change the rating on universal credit to encourage more people into work, but that is not happening. That would help to support people who are in work but who are impoverished. The last Government brought in the household support fund to ensure that there was immediate support. I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still have not seen what that looks like. That will be a concern for people.
I shall end where I began. This system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but also to those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints and so should a country. This Bill does nothing but the opposite, and that is my concern.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will touch briefly on the Conservatives’ position and then turn to the Bill itself.
The Conservatives have at least been consistent on this policy—consistently cruel. I would point out the level of detachment with the reality faced by so many families in my constituency. The reality for such a high percentage of families is they do not choose whether to have children. They do not sit down and work out whether the money adds up. The reason that the rape clause is in place is because so many people are not able to make those choices. People do not set out with an intention to have a certain number of children; it is about what happens in the circumstances that are created.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not.
The reality is that the Conservatives’ position is a very entitled, privileged one, and it does not reflect the majority of our constituents.
Kirsty Blackman
I said I would not give way.
Let me turn to where we are today. The Labour party is being a bit smug about the position we are in. The SNP has been absolutely consistent in calling for the removal of the two-child cap. Alison Thewliss stood in this Chamber and highlighted the rape clause at every possible opportunity; I think people got fed up with her talking about it so much, but she was one of the people leading the charge. On that note, I thank those Labour Members who did back removing the two-child cap at the earliest opportunity. I understand how difficult it is to do that, and I appreciate that they were willing to put their principles first.
Today is a good day because the two-child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything he has said before on this. That means he does not regret saying that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap causes harm, despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite.
I am glad that the Government are finally scrapping this policy. Children should not be at the sharp end of Government decisions, just as older people whose winter fuel payment was scrapped should not be at the sharp end. None of them is able to take these decisions on their finances. None of them can work a few more hours: a six-year-old cannot do that; a pensioner cannot just work a few more hours, because they may be significantly over the pension age and unable to work.
We need to recognise what has been said by a significant number of Members today, which is that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard; it is just that work does not pay—it does not pay enough. If we look at the stats, we see that people feel that the social security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live. We know that people living on universal credit—particularly large families—cannot afford the essentials, even if they are working. That is what this debate is about: giving people the best chance in life.
The Government, however, are not going far enough yet. The strategy that came out of their child poverty taskforce was simply a reiteration of many things that had already been announced. It was a summary: “Here we are. Here are all the things we have announced already as a Government.” It does not have the ambition we need in order to see child poverty tackled. If we look at the stats, we see that the rate of children in poverty by the end of this Parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. This measure will not reduce child poverty over the piece; the same percentage of children will be in poverty as are in poverty now, because the Government are failing to have ambition.
The UK Government should look at the Scottish child payment, as I asked them to do the other day. They should look at the amount of additional money being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one, in recognition of the difficulty and importance of those first 1,000 days. They should look at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty, at the baby box, at the Best Start grants being provided to families, and at the tackling child poverty delivery plan that the Scottish Government will bring out in March. Unlike the UK Government’s paper, which simply lays out a number of great things that the Government say they are doing, we have targets in our plan; We are looking at the actual difference that each of our policies make. I urge the UK Government to look at what is being done in Scotland and at the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and to consider what can be done to ensure that children have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is true to say that the Conservative party has been right about one thing today: this is about choices, and I am incredibly proud to be making the one that we are making.
The Conservative party did untold damage to our country, whether it was in hollowing out the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists or Liz Truss, but the most egregious part of its record was the harm it inflicted on our nation’s children. An entire generation was plunged into poverty.
Poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ scorched-earth programme of austerity reversed that trend. Over their 14 years in power, the number of those in child poverty rose by 900,000, and 4.5 million children now live in poverty. In my constituency, thousands of children are growing up in poverty, which is around one in three. Those are not simply abstract statistics; they are the children and families I meet every week.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table, and she is absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they will be turning the heating on or skipping a meal; kids already feel the weight of the world on their shoulders before their 10th birthday; and—as was mentioned just a moment ago—parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet. It is cold bedrooms, missed meals and two small, patched-together school uniforms—these are scars that last a lifetime.
Much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two-child benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment and—leaving aside the fact-free nonsense that we have heard previously from the Conservative party—it makes no difference to family sizes, and it does not drive up employment. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, almost 60% of affected families are in work. The two-child limit does not achieve the so-called goals that Tory ideologues pretend to lay out. Instead, it punishes children; all it does is make children poorer, and it is the single biggest driver of child poverty. Perhaps that is why there are so few Opposition Members prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt policy.
Dr Evans
There are not many on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman’s party won the last election—but we know that the public support keeping this cap in place. Any poll conducted in the last few years has suggested that, on average, 60% of people think that the cap should remain. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the British public back the cap staying in place?
John Slinger
I could not have put it better, particularly the point my hon. Friend made about enjoying a pint. I too enjoy a pint, but linking something as serious as tackling child poverty to the price of a pint in our pubs is trivialising an incredibly serious topic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is speaking from a sedentary position. Would he like to intervene?
Dr Evans
I just see the irony of the hon. Member talking about linking this to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party has directly linked this to gambling, even though this is not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two?
John Slinger
It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a Government such as ours to take measures in Budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this Bill would do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. I think the hon. Member makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say so.
Andrew Pakes
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wearing a deep heat patch for my bad back, so there would be no fight from me today. I apologise to the House for the passion I have for British values and the hard work of people in my community, who I will stand up for every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.
Andrew Pakes
I will try to make some progress.
We have inherited an economic and moral failure by the previous Government, and this Bill will start to put that right by injecting money into the pockets of families and supporting children. It is also why I welcome the youth guarantee and the focus on earning and learning for this Government. The DWP has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, and it is a national hotspot for child poverty, too. Through the work of this Government to address the needs of children in poverty—the expansion of family hubs, the support for breakfast clubs, the investment in schools and early years alongside the investment in further education and apprenticeships—we are beginning to turn the tide.
What matters to the people of my constituency is having the chance to get on in life, to support their children and to have pride in their community and their families. Today, with this Bill, which I hope all Members will vote for, we begin to restore pride in our community by giving dignity back to parents in difficult situations.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Lady talks about speaking for the public, but consistently, in all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What does she say to them?
Antonia Bance
I say to the people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised questions with me about this policy that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the Children published this morning some polling showing that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut. The fastest and most effective way to cut child poverty is to get rid of this punitive, gross policy that artificially inflates the number of children in poverty and creates an escalator to get more into poverty every day, with every child born.
To the Opposition parties, I would say this. I hear you say to these families, “Go out and get a job.” Most of them are already in work. Are you telling those five and six-year-olds—
Sir Stephen Timms
The change for which I think the hon. Lady is arguing would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures. There is a real advantage in the benefit cap, in terms of the incentive to work. We are not proposing to change that, and in the changes that we are making we are maintaining that incentive very robustly. This is a change from the choices of the last Government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks.
I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) rightly referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, and others mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, successfully, for the change that we are making.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said in her opening speech that her party did not accept the relative poverty definition. As we were reminded during the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010—it was part of the change that was made at the time—but between 2010-11 and 2023-24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it had been at the beginning. That was an extraordinary feature of her party’s record in government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her contribution to the debate and for the work of her Work and Pensions Committee, alongside that of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The points that she made were absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was, I think, the first to draw attention to the struggle that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. According to survey evidence, in 38% of schools staff are currently paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because their parents cannot afford to buy them. They have full-time roles tackling hardship, taking away funds that ought to be spent on education.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made a thoughtful speech, as he often does, but he was wrong. He said that the extra money would be for people because they were not working. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—in a spirited contribution—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) that the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work, and as a result the hon. Gentleman’s argument crumbled away.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not be giving way.
It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.
I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.
The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Youth Unemployment
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
No, I will make some progress. Put simply, the Conservatives cut off opportunity for young people. They wrote them off, and then they blamed young people for the position they were in. On the Government Benches, we know that young people are this country’s future and that their success is Britain’s success. We are not prepared to sit on our hands and let all that talent and potential go unused. That is not good enough for those young people, and it is not good enough for this country, which needs the contribution they can offer more than ever and not just now, but for the next 40 years.
Dame Diana Johnson
No, I am going to make some progress. We are investing in young people to turn around the dire legacy that the Conservatives left behind. We are supporting young people so that they can fulfil their potential, breaking the cycle of wasted talent cascading down generations. We are starting already to see some signs of progress. We have got record levels of employment and youth employment is up by 153,000 in the past year, but the scale of the crisis brewed up by the Conservatives requires much more than that. The number of young people neither learning nor earning is equivalent to three cities the size of Hull, so we know that there is more to do.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will later on, but I want to get this on the record. We know that if someone falls out of the workforce—[Interruption.] The Conservative MPs chuntering from a sedentary position might just want to listen to this, because it is about the future of our country. We know that if someone falls out of the workforce when they are young, they can lose out on £1 million in earnings, and it costs the state a similar amount to support them, but if we can ensure that they get the right opportunities and support early on, we can change their life stories for the better. That is why we are helping more young people into work, and it is why youth employment is a priority for us in the DWP.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about apprenticeships, and I will say more about them in due course.
In years past, those who went to university and attained a good degree could reasonably expect an entry-level job in the field in which they wanted to work, but now the experience for so many young people is that they enter a job market that is not open to hiring inexperienced people; employers are less willing or able to take a risk on training individuals just out of university. When I spoke to business students from Roehampton University earlier this month, they explained to me their fears that they will be unable to work in the field of their choosing. One student told me that they had even seen an advertisement for a volunteering position that required three years of experience. The job market is so crowded and competitive that the reality for more and more graduates is that they must return to living with their parents after university, with no serious prospect of gaining even an entry-level job.
Dr Luke Evans
Does the hon. Member share my concern about the graduate market? We are talking about youth unemployment, but we know from the Office for National Statistics that 257,000 Brits have emigrated, of whom 70% were under the age of 35. We are losing a lot of talent, but that is not being picked up in the figures for youth unemployment, so it is likely that youth unemployment is actually significantly worse, and that is because of the Government’s changes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
It has been confirmed that those whose income is only the basic level of the basic state pension or the new state pension will not be required to pay tax next year, because the level of personal allowance has been set above the level of the new state pension. What the Chancellor said at the Budget was that in future years we will make sure that no pensioner will be required to fill in a self-assessment form, or indeed a simple self-assessment form, for any tax that is due because the new state pension level is above that of the personal allowance.
Welfare Spending
Luke Evans Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting reflection on the state of the system left behind by 14 years of Tory government. We are going to be making progress, as I said.
Our plan will help deliver our ambition not just for jobs but for national renewal by building new homes, making the NHS fit for the future and powering the shift to green energy. Among people of working age, those with low or no qualifications are some 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than those who are better qualified. Just closing that gap would mean a million extra people in work.
But skills are not the only barrier; for many, it is ill health, and we are determined to get people back to work and back to good health. We will open up more opportunities for people who have been out of work because of ill health in the past with WorkWell employment advisers embedded directly in healthcare teams, from GP surgeries to mental health services.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a bit more headway first.
Connect to Work will go to the end of the decade to support 300,000 disabled people and people with health and other complex barriers to employment to get into and get on in work. Our Pathways to Work guarantee, backed by an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade, will bring all that together with personalised work, health and skills support for anybody on out-of-work benefits with a health condition or disability who wants that support.
We already have 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers in place, working in jobcentres across the country to help disabled people. A few weeks ago I met a couple of them in Edinburgh, and they told me of the positive reactions from the people they ring up. The system gave up on those people years ago, but we have not given up on them.
Dr Evans
The Minister mentioned WorkWell, which is a fantastic scheme introduced in 2023 that dealt with 59,000 people through £64 million of Conservative Government investment. I am glad that the Government are taking that forward and looking to expand it. My concern as a GP is about trying to get more people on the premises. Where will the work coaches go when premises do not have the space? That delivery is really important. Will he explain what has happened from the pilots to where we are now and how this will be taken forward?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.
The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.
The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.
To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.
As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a little more headway. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, to ensure that the system supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through work. We will also carry out more face-to-face assessments over the next year, boosting the number of health professionals working in assessment centres. Face-to-face assessments were stopped for understandable reasons during the pandemic, but they were never really brought back. The places where they were carried out were sold off and we are having to reinstate and rebuild that service.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is important that the House, first of all, reflects on where the Conservatives left our community when they left power. We should reflect on the fact that the number of people who are economically inactive has gone up from 2.1 million in 2019 to 2.8 million. The fact that the bill for incapacity benefits has gone up from £34 billion to £51 billion is quite shocking. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel able to share their pearls of wisdom with the Chamber after leaving the world in such a sorry state. The Conservatives have climbed into the gutter to produce the proposals before us this evening; Disraeli and Peel must be turning in their graves.
There are some real challenges. We need a true culture change, both in the benefit system and in the employment world, to help people get into work. That culture change should involve us taking a trauma-informed approach, in the DWP, in our civil service and in our society, so that we can help people who can work into work.
I would also like to reflect on the sorry state in which the Conservatives left our NHS after they starved it of cash and failed to invest in it for many years. It is a great pity that so many residents came to me in my first year as MP for Torbay to tell me that they were unable to have the operations they required, due to the Conservatives’ lack of investment over many years. They bled money out of the capital system to cover the costs of revenue. That is utterly shameful. Torbay hospital continues to crumble and, sadly, under the new Labour Government, we still see £250 million of in-year cuts to our NHS services. While the Conservatives undermine those with mental health challenges, Devon partnership NHS trust is set for £21 million in cuts.
Dr Evans
It was the Conservative Government who brought in the mental health investment standard to ensure parity for mental health. It is this Government who made the capital cut the hon. Gentleman mentions, and who are not meeting the standard. I am intrigued; why does he think that there is so much difficulty understanding that, and why are the Labour Government making cuts to mental health payments?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member. I reflect on the savage cuts made to public health spending. I would particularly mention the number of people who sleep rough on our streets. I campaigned on the issue as a young Liberal, more than 30 years ago. Sadly, those rough sleepers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the challenges in our society. The cuts faced by the Devon partnership trust are a real challenge.
I want to move on to Access to Work. Ministers have said on the record that it is one of the Government’s best kept secrets, but I fear that it has not performed as strongly as it could in driving people into work. In fact, I and others have real concerns that changes to the system could undermine it. Someone with a disability is 50% more likely to be out of work. A quarter of people who are registered blind are in work. That clearly means that 75% are out of work—those are shocking figures.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Charlie Mayfield report on how we can engage appropriately with the employment world, and on the positive lessons that can be learned from our nearby colleagues in Europe. I look forward to that coming forward, but perhaps the Government put the cart before the horse; the report should have been undertaken before the Employment Rights Bill was progressed.
Finally, I come to a policy that Liberal Democrats have voted against on three occasions in this Parliament: the two-child limit and the benefits cap. What choice was there for the widow and her children? I am shocked that the Conservatives have such heartlessness that they are turning their backs on those individuals. Some 4.5 million children—that is, every third child—live in poverty in the United Kingdom. In a visit that I made to Barton Hill academy in recent years, I asked the kids what they liked and did not like about Torbay. Their answers were not so much about things like litter; they were more about mum and dad not being able to make ends meet. I wonder how many of those youngsters were impacted by the two-child limit.
In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, such as the ability that it will give us to manage the benefits bill, and a return to face-to-face assessments where possible, but others are totally derisible. We see the benefit system as being akin to our NHS: it should be there to support people in living their best life. We will therefore not support the motion.
Rebecca Smith
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.
So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.
To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.
First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.
Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Dr Luke Evans
One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer?
Rebecca Smith
I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.
Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.
Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.
Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.
Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.
Liz Kendall
I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.
As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29—increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.
Dr Luke Evans
The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?
Liz Kendall
Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.
Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.
Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.
Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.
I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsTuesday 29th April 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
Andrew Western
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Luke Evans
In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.
Rebecca Smith
I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.
We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.
Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.
In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.
New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.
Andrew Western
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.
I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.
The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of
“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,
with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.
Andrew Western
I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.
In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.
PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance
Luke Evans Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we will not withdraw the policy. We will certainly reflect on it, and we will consult properly on the content of the Green Paper. The figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday showed that the benefit changes, on their own, will take 250,000 people, including 200,000 adults, below the poverty line, but that is before any consideration of the impact of the big commitment that we are making to employment support —up to £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. That will clearly have a very positive effect in reducing poverty. The Office for Budget Responsibility will look at all of this over the summer and then update its figures in the autumn. We will see what it concludes, but I think the balance of this package will be very positive for reducing poverty in the UK.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
To help families, the last Government put in place the household support fund, which this Government have continued. However, it is due to run out in 2026, when the Minister’s changes are coming in. What hope is there for households who need emergency support if the household support fund will be dropped when his changes come in?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have retained the household support fund, as the hon. Member rightly points out, and the future arrangements will be set out in due course. However, I can reassure him of the absolute commitment of this Government to supporting families who need our support. The child poverty taskforce is working on this issue at the moment, and will bring forward a strategy to address the problem of child poverty. The figures published this morning on households below average income show just what a huge challenge there is, given the very high level of child poverty left by the previous Government. We will be addressing that.
Winter Fuel Payment
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately
One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision?
Helen Whately
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might.
Helen Whately
I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill.
Dr Luke Evans
Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon.
Dr Evans
I am terribly grateful to the Minister. He made the point about there being 235,000 applications, which was great. In my written question, I asked about that and he came back and said 117,800 claims were awarded, but 114,500 were not. Those were clearly people who felt they were entitled to pension credit but who will now struggle. What support is available for those people, who are clearly right on the cusp and are now not eligible and do not have pension credit?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member makes an important point. We should encourage people to apply, even if a percentage of those will always not qualify. The criteria under which people have been assessed are those put in place by the previous Administration for pension credit. However, he is right; we want as many people as possible to apply, even if some of them are not successful, for exactly the reason raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—we need awareness of pension credit to be higher and we need to encourage claims, because a lot of people who are entitled are missing out. It is not always absolutely clear whether someone is entitled, for example if they are in receipt of attendance allowance.
All the progress since September that I have spoken about is a real achievement, but I am the first to say very clearly that it is far from job done. Far too many people are still missing out on pension credit. We are already building on this winter’s campaign, and that includes writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit. In the longer term, this Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, making it easier for pensioners to get support. That was also a policy of previous Administrations at different times, even if delivering it was not prioritised.
We will also undertake new research on what helps boost take-up—that goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. There is a slight misunderstanding about people wanting to apply but being reluctant—the evidence does not support that significantly. The key problem is awareness of the system.
Joy Morrissey
I think our record speaks for itself—we had 14 years. It is very interesting that the Labour party talks about tough choices. For pensioners, turning off the heat—being made to choose between heating and eating—is a tough choice. That is a choice that this Labour Government have made for the most vulnerable.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is correct that this is about actions, not words. Labour’s decision on the winter fuel payment was not in their manifesto; it was brought in with a piece of legislation that was voted on without an impact assessment and then put into place. Yesterday, we heard an announcement about disabilities that was also not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It was brought forward with a gap before the impact assessment—we will see that in a couple of weeks’ time—and it will then be taken through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public are being taken for fools? These are not transparent policies or policies that were put forward in a manifesto; they are being brought forward later on, under the guise of trying to do something better.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about transparency and keeping our promises to the British public, and it lays bare the truth about this Government.
Josh Simons
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few more minutes, I will come to the exact question of the threshold at which pension credit is awarded and at which, therefore, someone is eligible for the winter fuel payment.
In order to reach the most vulnerable people, who are often the hardest to reach because they are not on Facebook and are not coming to my coffee mornings, I wrote to more than 5,000 pensioners to ensure that they received the support they deserved.
Let me end by making a broader point. Today’s debate has underscored a simple truth about Conservative Members. Theirs is no longer the party with the strength and courage to lead, whether in asserting the sovereignty of this place or in making arguments with principle.
Josh Simons
I will not.
The Conservatives knew that the winter fuel payment needed to change—they said so in their manifesto in 2017—but they did nothing about it. They knew that NHS England was duplicating, wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to drive up standards, but they did nothing about it. They knew that flooding was getting worse in places such as Platt Bridge, Ashton and Abram in my constituency, but they did nothing about it.
Let me give an even more egregious example from this week. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has stomped his feet and shaken his head about new guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that independent agencies should not make policy; this Chamber should. However, what the shadow Secretary of State for Justice is unwilling to confront is the fact that his party welcomed that guidance. The unequal treatment in the guidance has not changed, and he knows that. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice typifies what the Conservative party has become, and that has been exemplified in this debate. Conservative Members come to this Chamber shaking with outrage and spoiling for a spat, but they forget that they have been in charge.