Amendment of the Law

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). I am glad that he is such a supporter of the triple lock on pensions. He must remember, of course, that it was the Liberal Democrats and not the Labour party that introduced the triple lock and restored the link with earnings broken all those years ago by Mrs Thatcher.

The economy is undoubtedly looking stronger now, not just according to the headline figures, with unemployment down, growth up, the deficit cut by a third in absolute terms and half in terms of GDP, inflation and interest rates both under control and living standards finally on the rise. It is stronger in a more subtle way, too. We have invested in infrastructure and in apprenticeships and skills, and carbon emissions are falling even while economic growth is increasing. Renewable energy has nearly tripled. This is a more sustainable economy and has strength in that regard as well.

I have some sympathy with something that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said. When we think about the performance of the economy, we do not think enough about quality of life, and it would be a good thing to have a well-being Budget as well as a classical economic Budget, perhaps delivered by the Prime Minister the day before to put the economic Budget in context. It is important to think about not just economic growth but our quality of life and the state of the nation’s well-being, as well as to have reported to this House indicators on things such as mental and physical health, crime and sense of security, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions and access to green space, and education and children’s happiness. That would be good in setting the context for the main Budget.

There is no doubt that in classical terms, at least, the economy is looking much stronger. Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have both taken the flak for the difficult decisions made in government that were necessary to secure those improvements and both parties should share the credit. I am certainly finding that the most popular headline policies in the Budget seem to be those pushed by the Liberal Democrats, such as taking more and more of the lowest paid earners out of income tax altogether; providing £1.25 billion over five years for mental health, particularly for children and new mums; and smaller items that might have passed almost unnoticed, such as £10 million for new school kitchens in support of the provision of free school meals.

It is on future spending plans, of course, that the coalition parties somewhat part company. The Chancellor identified £5 billion from tax avoidance and evasion and aggressive tax planning to help balance the books, which clearly we would welcome, and perhaps even push further on, but the other £25 billion he identified are all from public spending cuts, either in welfare or unnamed Government Departments. Of course, he wants to carry on cutting, even after the books are balanced, and apparently without seeking to raise a penny from those who can afford to pay more. That seems to me to be calculated to damage public services far more than they need to be damaged, to cut more than needs to be cut and to take us towards a less fair society, not a fairer one.

There were a few items in the Budget of particular interest to Cheltenham. I am very pleased that Cheltenham racecourse got a mention; it is not quite in my constituency, but it is economically very important to it. The commitment to a racing right that guarantees a more secure income from betting to racing is very much to be welcomed. I also welcome the commitment on superfast broadband, although there are still questions to be asked on exactly how that will be implemented, even in urban areas such as mine.

I welcome the endorsement for tidal lagoon power, although there are a few qualifications around that. I hope that the negotiations on the strike price will be negotiated quickly and hopefully concluded before the general election. I hope that they will reflect the fact that, unlike the nuclear industry, which receives a huge subsidy, being a 60-year-old mature industry, lagoon power is a cutting-edge, pioneering feat of engineering which has enormous potential for safe and sustainable growth in energy.

The Budget also included a reference to the intelligence services. The Chancellor made a very welcome commitment to right the injustice that has been suffered by the widowers, widows and former civil partners of firefighters, police officers and those in the intelligence services with regard to their pension rights. In the Budget documents, however, the commitment for the intelligence services is not quite so cast-iron; they talk about examining the possibility of doing the same thing for the intelligence services. Many of my constituents work tirelessly for the safety and security of this country. It is fantastic that the widowers, widows and former civil partners of firefighters and police officers will have their pension rights looked at and the injustice remedied, but it would be very unfair if the same right were not extended to the intelligence services. That is just one small way in which we could make our society fairer as well as building the stronger economy that we can all now celebrate.

Pensions Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

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

One of the problems on Report is that we get back into the weeds and the detail and lose track of the big picture. I think we can all be proud of producing a Bill that will be seen by history as a lasting and valuable reform to the pensions system, even if I say so myself.

To begin on a note of consensus, I thank the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and its Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who is in her place, for its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, or at least the parts relating to the single-tier pension. We are grateful for that input and made changes in the light of its recommendations, including putting the start date in the Bill and setting the maximum and minimum qualifying period at 10 qualifying years. We have discussed further some of the Committee’s recommendations as we have proceeded. We are grateful for its constructive and swift scrutiny of the Bill.

The reason for the Bill is that we have a state pension system still grounded in the models of the second world war, a system where men went out to work and women depended on men, and a system of mind-numbing complexity that made it impossible for people to plan rationally for their retirement. Each change by successive Governments has been made with the best of intentions, but, grafted on to the previous lot of changes, they left people with a system that nobody could hope to understand. That mattered in its own right, but it matters particularly in a world of automatic enrolment if we are to expect another 10 million people to save, in some cases, relatively small amounts for their retirement. They have to be able to do so confident that they will not see their hard-earned savings means-tested away. That is why the single-tier state pension, a single, simple decent state pension set above the level of the basic means test, is such a fundamental reform.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been supportive of this principle from day one. I am grateful to him and to my colleagues in the Department for the fact that the coalition has been able to introduce this reform, which is long overdue and will, I believe, stand the test of time. While we have had our differences with the Opposition, I am grateful to them for their support for the principle of the single-tier pension. We all want to see a pension system that is not constantly chopped and changed, but stands the test of time. I believe that the single-tier pension, subject to any further refinements their lordships might wish to make, will indeed stand the test of time and will provide a firm foundation for retirement saving.

The Bill does not only deal with the single-tier pension. Part 2 brings forward the increase in the state pension age to 67 and sets out a process for dealing with these things in a more rational and measured way. We envisage that as life expectancy increases, the majority of that time will be added to working life, but a period will be added also to retirement. It is a measured, balanced and systematic approach that will allow people to plan for their retirement in a way that all too often they cannot.

Part 3 reforms the bereavement support payment, which we have not been able to discuss today, and which is designed to focus support for bereaved families on that point immediately after bereavement and in the year thereafter, when bereaved families have told us they need the most support and cash. That is the purpose of the reform.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Bill, which is an important, historic and long-overdue change in the pension system, but will he acknowledge that charities such as Winston’s Wish, based in my constituency, and the Childhood Bereavement Network have expressed concerns about the bereavement support arrangements in the Bill, particularly for parents who still need that support after one year—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is meant to be an intervention, not a speech. It is unfair on the other Members waiting to speak. In fairness, Mr Horwood, you ought to give a little more consideration and make shorter interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

My understanding is that that is not the only change: my constituent will not be able to access £144 a week because the second state pension has been done away with and she will not be entitled to that money. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will tell me that my constituent will receive the equivalent of £144 a week. No, she will not receive that, so she is being penalised by this action, because she will not be able to receive her second state pension. [Interruption.]

I will continue to make progress. Like me, these women are angry and upset because they have done the right things all their lives, yet will be disadvantaged in comparison with a man born on exactly the same day as they were.

This is not the only issue that hurts women. Raising the number of necessary years for national insurance contributions to 35 again disproportionately hits women. We know that women are the ones who normally take time off to look after children and, indeed, to look after ageing parents and ageing parents-in-law. This Government will undo the good work done by the last Labour Government to improve the lot of women’s pensions, with a further 100,000 fewer qualifying for a full pension. This is particularly unfair to those who are close to retirement age, who will not have the opportunity to make up the extra years—unless they work well into their 70s.

I wrote to the Minister about Maureen and my other constituents. The letter I received back was illuminating and, frankly, complacent. Let me quote some of it:

“It is important to note that we are not proposing simply to increase the pension from £110 per week for today’s pensioners to around £144 week for new pensioners…Future pensioners will simply build up towards a flat rate pension of around £144—there will be no additional State Pension on top of this figure, so the maximum State Pension attainable under the new system will be significantly lower than under the current system. I should also add that in some ways the new system will be less generous for those who retire after April 2016.”

The letter went on to say:

“While women born shortly after your constituent may receive a single-tier pension, they will have to wait several months longer than your constituent before they can start to draw a pension. Furthermore, the average entitlement for women reaching State Pension age shortly after the new system’s introduction is projected to be £131 per week and not the illustrative single-tier full rate of £144 per week. In comparison, women reaching State Pension age shortly before the new system is introduced will receive an average of £125 per week under the current system, made up from a combination of basic and additional State Pension.”

It seems clear to me that women born in that age bracket will be disadvantaged, yet the Government announced their proposed changes with a grand fanfare about how much better off all pensioners would be under the new system. They have failed to tell people, particularly women, that some of them would be worse off. I just wonder why everything this Government do seems to make things worse for women, who are hit by so many things—hit twice as hard, for example, by the Budget and three times as hard by other Government actions.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady explain why the triple lock made things worse for women?

[Julie Hilling]

Of course the triple lock affects everybody; it does not just affect women. Some of the changes, however, affect women only. That is my point. It is not that this Government are doing nothing—I applaud the triple lock—but I deplore the fact that whenever the Budget and other measures are taken, it is often women who suffer. Women are worse affected, as they are on this pensions issue.

I finish by asking why the Government are trying to turn the clock back to times when things were worse for women than for men. This Government continue to act in that way, which greatly disappoints me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Work Capability Assessments

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. I also thank her for being unusually helpful and supplying a copy of her speech to my office in advance. I hope that that will enable us to engage in a reasoned debate on how we are to introduce the audio recording of work capability assessments. It is important, and we must get it right. It accords firmly with our commitment to improving the WCA process continuously.

The interest in audio recording that has been expressed in parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and, indeed, today’s debate demonstrates the importance of this issue. We fully appreciate the benefits of offering audio recording to those who request it as part of their face-to-face assessments, but, while we accept that there has been an increase in demand for its use, we must be sure that we understand the evidence base, including that relating to the value to claimants. Making knee-jerk policy is not an option. The evidence needs to be balanced against potential costs, and that is the process in which my officials are currently engaged. I shall say more about that shortly.

As the hon. Lady said, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), made a statement on audio recording back in February 2012. He said on that occasion:

“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291-92WH.]

Since then we have striven to honour that commitment, and all those having face-to-face assessments have been able to request that their sessions be recorded.

The present policy is that claimants can ask for their assessments to be recorded, either by means of the service offered by the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos Healthcare or through the use of their own recording equipment. Requests for an audio recording, whether through the use of Atos Healthcare’s equipment or through the use of equipment provided by a claimant, must be made in advance when a face-to-face assessment is arranged. The purpose of that is to provide adequate notice so that recording equipment can be made available and ready for use.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

A constituent of mine provided her own equipment for her son’s work capability assessment. One tribunal judged that it was admissible while another judged that it was not, because it was not clear that the nurse involved had given consent. Allowing claimants to provide their own equipment leads to complications. It would be much better if the equipment were clearly offered, and, indeed, if its provision became standard.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how difficult it is for people to provide their own equipment, and to the importance of ensuring that proper controls govern such matters as consent.

Atos has access to 31 audio recording machines, three of which are currently being repaired. It also has access to 21 cassette machines which are on loan from the DWP. We constantly monitor the updating of audio recording assessments to ensure that the supply of the equipment meets demand.

Let me put our commitment into more context. Those who want an audio recording can request one, but a claimant has no legal right to an audio-recorded assessment, and neither the DWP nor Atos Healthcare has a legal obligation to provide an audio-recording service or equipment. Our commitment is based on our intention to provide the best possible service for claimants, but the unavailability of audio recording facilities does not mean that the WCA process can be delayed indefinitely. That could slow down the process unnecessarily. Since the introduction of audio recording, only nine requests have been refused owing to the unavailability of equipment.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, Professor Harrington’s first independent review of the WCA recommended that the Atos Healthcare pilot audio recording of assessments should be used to determine whether such an approach is helpful for claimants and improves the quality of assessments. In making that recommendation, Professor Harrington rightly noted the need to balance potential drawbacks such as the increased burdens on tribunals and the sharing of sensitive personal data, with potential improvements in both assessor and claimant behaviours.

Following that recommendation, the audio pilot took place in the Newcastle assessment centre during spring 2011. The pilot involved 500 claimants being offered the chance to volunteer to have their assessment recorded. The results of the pilot showed that less than half of those offered ended up having an audio recorded assessment and only a handful, less than 1%, requested a copy of their assessment.

The hon. Lady has raised concerns about the metrics we use when considering demand for audio recording. We feel that the metrics used are key in showing the exact demand during the pilot.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The policies of the previous Government reduced the number of children below the poverty line by 1.1 million. The policies of this Government are set to increase it by 1 million by 2020. That is a shameful record.

What we will have from April is a toxic combination of policies that will cut the highest rate of income tax and real-terms cuts in benefits and tax credits. Some 8,000 people who earn over £1 million a year will get a tax cut in April averaging more than £2,000 a week. Someone receiving the adult rate of jobseeker’s allowance will receive 71p a week. People are getting angry at what the Government are doing.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman may or may not think that the Bill is a partisan device by the Chancellor—and he may or may not be right—but in refusing to support either the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) or the various amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, is not the Labour party being absolutely pathetic? It has the opportunity to do something about this and it is not taking it.

[Stephen Timms]

We will announce uprating policy in the normal way on the normal timetable, not on a date chosen by the Chancellor for his own partisan purposes.

I think the Minister knows that I have been looking back at his speech in the Child Poverty Bill Second Reading debate in July 2009—fewer than four years ago. It was an autobiographical speech, as he said at the time. He explained that his first job was with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, where he had the task in the 1980s of compiling its poverty statistics. He said that

“year after year the level of child poverty would remorselessly grow. A majority of people would do relatively well, enjoying tax cuts, and the people at the top would do exceptionally well, but year after year more and more children would find themselves in poverty.”

He said that he decided to become a politician because he

“was appalled at what was happening in our country to the most vulnerable people”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 625.]

Now here he is, three and a half years later, arguing in this Committee for exactly the same combination of policies he condemned at the time: tax cuts for the highest paid and benefit cuts for the most vulnerable. Exactly as in the 1980s, as he knows better than anybody, the result is certain: child poverty rocketing. With the extra rise as a result of the Bill, if current policies are maintained it will go up by 1 million by 2020—right back up to the level he was logging at the IFS in the 1980s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I think it is the ultimate insult to ordinary people’s intelligence to say that in order to incentivise those at the top end of the economy we have to pay them more, while incentivising people at the bottom end by paying them less. “We are all in this together”—I don’t think.

By no stretch of the imagination should these hard-working people—all those I have just listed—be regarded as shirkers. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates the cost of child poverty to the taxpayer as £25 billion, despite the fact that 57% of children living in poverty have one parent working. Surely increasing the number of children suffering from child poverty, which is what the Bill will do, will take more out of the Treasury’s coffers in the long term than would be saved from capping the uprating.

[Martin Horwood]

On the subject of insulting people’s intelligence, will the hon. Gentleman vote for either of the amendments that seek to change the rate of this benefit cut?

[Ian Mearns]

What I will do is listen to the debate and see whether I can be convinced one way or the other.

Given that the majority of the people impacted by the Bill are in work, the Minister should perhaps have listened to my suggestion on Second Reading: why not legislate for a living wage so that low-paid workers are not reliant on the Government to top up their income but are paid an adequate wage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have my own ideas about the banking collapse, which I am happy to share with the hon. Lady—although not, perhaps, tonight.

The financial crisis, which we all remember, devastated everyone. Even today, the United Kingdom economy is 3% smaller than it was in 2008. I cannot speak for everyone in the country, but the vast majority of people are much less well-off than they were in those days. What has happened to benefits since then? According to the figures that we have heard, they have increased by 20% while the earnings of people in work have risen by 10%. That is not fair.

Labour Members have talked of fairness. For instance, the hon. Member for Chesterfield argued eloquently that 1% on £70 a week was very different from 1% on £35,000 a year. However, it is not the people on £35,000 a year about whom we are worried; it is the people on very low incomes. People in my constituency who do night shifts at Heathrow come to me and ask “Why did out-of-work benefits rise by 5% last year? I earn £11,000 a year if I am lucky and work 20 hours a week, but I was not given such a big increase.” That is the sort of fairness that we are talking about. This is a really important issue, which Opposition Members have not addressed in any way.

[Martin Horwood]

Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question—which applies to people on low incomes in my constituency as much as to those in his—that those who have worked hard and have low incomes, but have paid their taxes and done the right thing, can still lose their jobs through no fault of their own and find themselves trying to subsist on 70 quid a week, and that we do not want to make things more difficult for those people? I think that very few of them are scroungers, and most want to get back to work as fast as possible.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am talking about the position in general. It cannot be right, arithmetically, for benefits to rise, year after year, faster than the wages of the low-paid people to whom he has referred. However, we must look at the overall picture. The 1% increase is not very much. I know that some Government Members proposed a cash freeze, and I am glad to note that the Government have not adopted that severe option; but in the context of the European and the global financial crisis, a cash freeze is not completely off the table. We have seen other countries take extremely tough measures. Why have they done that? They have not done it because they want to limit demand, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East suggested. They have not done it because they want to hurt people on low incomes. They have done it because they feel that the fiscal future—the future of the state: the future of their countries—requires a tough approach to public spending.

Amendment of the Law

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The cornerstone of this Budget is undoubtedly the need to tackle the deficit. Spending £50 billion a year just on debt interest, which is double what we spend on transport, was clearly intolerable and could not go on. If we had not tackled the deficit, we would have found that an Irish, Greek or Portuguese economic future awaited us all, meaning more cuts, more public billions down the drain and higher interest rates, which would have hit everyone with a mortgage, everyone with an overdraft and every business dependent on bank borrowing. There is no point pretending that the cuts are not painful, but interest rates of 7%, 8% or higher would have been extremely painful, too, so I am glad that the Chancellor did not take that risk.

I am also very glad that the Chancellor is well on the way to fulfilling a Lib Dem election pledge to take more than 1 million people out of income tax, benefiting 24 million more by raising the income tax threshold. That will take nearly 2,000 of my constituents out of income tax altogether and benefit nearly half the population of the town.

There are also many welcome measures in the Budget for business and for investment. The cut in corporation tax will help small businesses in my constituency; I hope that we will benefit from some of the 40,000 new apprenticeships for young people not in education, employment or training; and it would be churlish of me not to mention the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line, which will be good for Cheltenham, good for business and good for the environment.

Good for the environment, too, will be the tripling of the endowment to the green investment bank to £3 billion, and the news that that bank will in due course be able to borrow on its own account. That is an important signal to green investors, and it will help us to lay the foundations of a low-carbon economy. So, too, will the commitment to a floor price for carbon, and, although £30 a tonne by 2020 is a pretty modest ambition, it gives an underlying message and confidence to those investing in green industry and green jobs.

I hope, however, that the measure will not lead to an accidental, back-door subsidy to the nuclear industry—not just to new nuclear but to the existing nuclear industry, which already costs us £1.5 billion of public money a year to clean up and close down. That is important, because any subsidy to the nuclear industry would run counter to specific pledges made in opposition by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen, and I know because I was one of them.

I have a few other slight worries about the Budget. Not all red tape is bad, and I am concerned about the relaxation of the rules to be able to request flexible working. In my experience as an employer, I found that flexible working generally increased staff commitment and productivity. Progressive and innovative companies are trying to do more of it, not less.

My biggest worry about the Chancellor’s speech is about planning. He said that

“we will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is yes.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 956.]

It may have been a shame that he did not have the space or time to explain that statement more fully, because, on the face of it, it is rather alarming. Not all development is sustainable, so how can the default answer possibly be yes?

I hope the Chancellor was guilty of no more than radical oversimplification, but one or two other statements in “The Plan for Growth” give cause for alarm. It states that the Government will enable

“businesses…to bring forward neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders.”

There are many definitions of a neighbourhood, which was not clearly defined in the Localism Bill, but I am pretty sure that a business is not a neighbourhood.

“The Plan for Growth” states also that the Government will

“localise choice about the use of previously developed land, removing nationally imposed targets”.

I do not welcome nationally imposed targets, but it is important that localities are able to prioritise brownfield sites over greenfield, and any qualification of that ability would not be helpful.

Possibly the most alarming news of all in “The Plan for Growth” is:

“Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) will be able to play a vital role in supporting local authorities plan for key sub national infrastructure… providing a powerful voice for business in the planning system”.

My constituents generally think that business has a pretty powerful voice in the planning system already, as it usually deploys battalions of barristers and consultants, but “sub national” worries me, because it has unfortunate echoes of Labour’s old regional spatial strategies.

People in the parish of Leckhampton with Warden Hill in my constituency know a bit about regional spatial strategies. They fought a battle against the south-west RSS for many years, and they are still fighting to protect the last substantial green space in the parish from disappearing almost completely. Such green spaces next to urban populations are vital for people’s health and physical welfare. They are opportunities for recreation; important for local food production; they absorb carbon dioxide and particulate pollution; and they are the most visited parts of the country and treasured by local people. Once lost, they are gone for ever, but they are exactly the spaces being targeted by developers, who in the past were supported by Labour’s myth that endless growth in urban extensions was sustainable. It simply was not.

The Localism Bill offers local communities real hope and the prospect that they will have a voice in the future of their own areas—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I was hoping and praying that this Budget would offer some employment chances for the people in my constituency. It has done nothing for employment chances in Vale of Clwyd; in fact, it has increased the chance of unemployment there.

There are 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, and of the top 50 for percentage of jobs in the public sector—including Edinburgh South with 67% and Swansea West at No. 50 with 41%—76% are Opposition constituencies and only 24% are Government constituencies. That speaks volumes. The policies that the Government are drawing up are policies not for Britain, but for the Tory and Liberal Democrat areas of Britain, and that is not one-nation conservatism. We are seeing on the economy the same partisanship that we saw on constitutional issues.

There are 13,000 public sector workers in my constituency.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Ruane]

I am not giving way.

There are 10,000 public sector workers in the neighbouring, Conservative constituency of Clwyd West. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the policy of the pupil premium, which is gearing education funding towards schools supporting the least well-off families, will support more Conservative and Liberal Democrat constituencies than Labour ones?

[Chris Ruane]

I will deal with that shortly; the hon. Gentleman does not have to worry about that.

In my constituency, there are already six people chasing one job. If the Government implement these 10% to 25% cuts in the public sector, another 2,000 to 3,000 people will become unemployed, with 20 people chasing each job. The Government state that they want the private sector to take up the slack of jobs in the public sector. What have they done to promote that in my constituency? Nothing. One of the biggest employers in north Wales is Sharp, which has the biggest solar panel factory in the whole of western Europe. There is also Kingspan in Delyn. In my constituency, we have the Technium OpTIC centre, which has the biggest solar panel in the whole of the UK. The changes to the feed-in tariff that the Government have announced will mean that these sectors are hit, and there will be job losses, not job expansions, in my constituency. An article in today’s edition of The Guardian stated that the UK had gone from third to 13th in green technology jobs in one year. This is not a green Government.

Young people in my constituency were looking to the Chancellor to help them to gain employment. They had help from the previous Government—a Labour Government. In my constituency, the Rhyl city strategy put 450 young people back to work in the space of 12 months. They were given hope; they were given a wage packet; they were given a future. All that has ended. The last day of the future jobs fund is tomorrow; after that, there will be nothing like it in my constituency.

Another article today in The Guardian mentioned that seaside towns and communities have the worst deprivation in the country. This Government did nothing to help those seaside towns; in fact, they worked against them. The changes that they have made to housing benefit will mean, as Boris Johnson has said, a Kosovo-style clear-out of the inner cities, especially London. Where will those people go? They will go to houses in multiple occupation in towns such as Weston-super-Mare, Hastings, Margate, Jaywick, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay and Blackpool. They will be moved from areas of employment to areas of unemployment, where slum landlords will make money out of misery—helped, aided and abetted by the Conservatives, who are altering the rules and regulations on the licensing of slum landlords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that we must do both. Under the previous Government—the Government of whom he was a member—inequality was at its worst since 1961. Clearly, they did not think that we must do both, but we do.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituent, Jackie Sallis, acquired her lifelong disability at birth, has tried but invariably failed to hold down a job and has been in receipt of disability living allowance. As regards the review that the Minister has already mentioned, will she reassure us that adults with lifelong conditions will not be subject to a regime of constant medical assessments that try to prove them fit for work, which will be stressful for them, ultimately pointless and, presumably, very expensive for the public purse?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As we pull together the procedures for the revisions to disability living allowance, we will consider just those sorts of things. We want to ensure that it is proportionate and that regular reviews are considered, so that the allowance can be given to those with the most need without putting too much pressure on those who will never move away from DLA.