Valedictory Debate

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was not expecting to speak today, as I did not know there was a slot today for valedictory speeches. During yesterday’s statement, I spoke about the importance of the NHS, and said that that would be the end of my contributions, but I saw Mr Speaker last night, and he explained that some time would be given over to valedictory speeches today. Having had the Conservative Whip restored this week, I am delighted to say that many, many colleagues have said, “You should say something and reflect.”

I start by saying what an honour it is to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who taught me an enormous amount when I was a new Member of Parliament and I served on her Public Accounts Committee. It was our Public Accounts Committee in theory, but as she was Chair, it was very much her PAC. I undertook to read every word of every draft report, because she was brilliant at occasionally —[Interruption.] She is laughing, which I take as an admission of guilt; she knows what I am going to say. She would occasionally stick in a sentence that put the boot into the Government, but she would put it on about page 29, hoping that nobody else in the Committee would notice. I took it upon myself to read the detail, and I learned that from her.

I have, of course, found serving in this House to be the privilege of my life—I am sure we all feel that. I agree strongly with the words of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), about the importance and value of public service. Politics, no matter how difficult it can be, is public service, because in a democracy it is the only way to translate the will of the people into the governance of the nation. We are the channels through which that should happen, and I want to thank some people who have helped make it happen for me.

I want to thank the people who got me into politics in the first place, particularly Dr Michael Hart, who is also the man who spotted my dyslexia, and Nick St Aubyn, the man who suffered most from my dyslexia. I was his agent in the 2001 general election, when he was the Member for Guildford. Let me retell a terrible story. He had written his election address and I had put it into a very early version of PowerPoint. He had written this lovely phrase, “I want to unite the community”. I thought it was great, so I put it into the headline. It was only when 42,000 copies of the election address had been delivered that he picked a copy up from his doormat and said, “Matt, why have your written, ‘I want to untie the community’?” He took it very well, but unfortunately he lost the seat, and I did not speak about my dyslexia for 20 years after that because of the shame it brought me. He also forgave me, which was a truly heroic act.

I thank my staff here, particularly Helen Dudley, who retired a few years ago, and Elizabeth Hitchcock. I thank the countless others who have supported me in my office here in Parliament, but those two have always held the thing together. Especially in times in government, when it is hard to give as much time as one would want to one’s constituency duties, they really have taken action. Both of them were preferred to me in West Suffolk and did a much better job than I could have done. I thank all the civil servants with whom I served and worked so closely, but I also want to put in a word for special advisers. Let me give one short story about why special advisers are such a valuable and important part of our political system. In the pandemic, Members might remember that during the vaccination programme there was an interval—a gap—between two doses of the vaccine being given. I cannot remember how long it was—it might have been 12 weeks. One of my political special advisers spotted a tweet from an American statistician saying that, because the first vaccine had a much greater impact than the second, if we reduced the number of weeks between the first and the second being given, we would save many lives. He spotted the tweet and brought it to me. I took it to the clinical leads, Professor Whitty and Professor Van-Tam, who ran the maths and verified it. We spoke to the regulators and, despite this being novel, within nine days the information spotted in a tweet by an American statistician became Government policy, announced here, and that was followed throughout the world. That alone is calculated to have saved 10,000 lives in the UK.

There are many more staff I would like to thank, including my three agents in West Suffolk over the years: Dorothy Whittaker, Lance Stanbury and Bobby Bennett. And, like the former Defence Secretary, I also thank my family, in particular my children, because the impact of the scrutiny of politics, especially when people make mistakes, has a huge impact on them, and they have put up with a lot.

It is in the nature of politics that people do not see what a team effort it is. Many people have said that today. What will I miss most? The single unambiguous answer to that question is that I will miss colleagues the most. In difficult times, the support of colleagues, both on this and the other side of the House, has been incredibly powerful. I will also miss the opportunity to contribute to national debates. The single vote that I regret not having taken part in is that on assisted dying, which surely will come and which I have come to support very passionately.

Politics is also noisier and harder than it was 14 years ago, when I first came to Parliament. The nature of social media has made it more difficult, and the nature of the world has, sadly, made it more dangerous. Even through this, one of the things that I have tried to promote is the power of technology as a force for good. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and I have campaigned on that together over the years. Yes, we must ensure that technology is harnessed for the benefit of humanity, but by God, we must make sure that harness it we do. We cannot stand in the way, and the UK is at its best when we are at the forefront and when we harness the power of modern technology. My prediction is that, over the next 14 years, the impact will be far greater not just on the economy but on society and politics than it has been even over the past 14 years. We are living through the slowest rate of change of our lives. It is only going to get faster, and I hope that this place is ready for that.

I cannot finish without a word on the NHS and the role it plays in our national life. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead asked me to be Health Secretary she said, “We need to improve the tech in the health service. Could you do that?” For 18 months, I thoroughly enjoyed myself trying to improve the tech in the health service. Then, of course, the pandemic struck. For one last time I want to say thank you to all of those who rose to the occasion and did so much to get us through, delivering the necessary safety measures, including the shielding programme, which is not mentioned as much as it should be, protecting those who were most vulnerable. And, of course, the vaccine programme was without doubt one of the country’s finest achievements in peacetime. I want to thank the colleagues with whom I worked incredibly closely and who helped make that happen; some of them were heroes of the pandemic too. 

I leave by saying this. I think it is impossible for a political party—those aspiring to govern—to win without some of those lodestars. It is impossible and wrong to win without being on the side of the future and trying to represent the youth of our country who are coming through. They may see things differently from how we do; I say that even as a 45-year-old. It is impossible to win or to deserve to win without a true love of the NHS. I am proud to serve a Prime Minister who is from an NHS family. That true love is important because the people believe it and it is true.

Finally, it is impossible to win unless we truly want to serve our country. I believe that everybody comes into this place wanting to make their country a better place. I have tried my hardest to do that for 14 years—to reach out, to try to do things differently and to try to embrace the future. It has been a honour and a privilege, and I thank you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Matt, and thank you NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Treasurer of His Majesty’s Household (Mr Marcus Jones)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am already receiving a note from the Whips telling me that I have spoken too long. Sending such notes is often my role in this House.

I am delighted to be standing in for the Leader of the House today. I observe that it is tradition, week on week, for the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Chairman of Ways and Means to spend a considerable amount of time at the parliamentary hairdressers. Unfortunately, I have not made it to the salon today.

I pay tribute to the Chairman of Ways and Means, Dame Eleanor, who is standing down from this House. She has done a fantastic job over a long period, as both a Member of Parliament and a Deputy Speaker. It is sad to see her leave the House. I also pay tribute to Dame Rosie, who is also leaving the House. The Whips spend a lot of time dealing with the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and it is an important relationship for the workings of this House.

I want to pay tribute to several colleagues who have not spoken in this debate, and I hope you will give me some latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is a brave, brave man. Sadly, he is not standing again at the election.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who has been ill for some time, and acknowledge the work he has done in this House and on the Council of Europe. I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has also been poorly. I am glad to say that he is standing again at the election. I pay tribute to him and the work he has done, particularly for our fishing industry and several other industries that affect his area.

I will try not to speak for too long, but to mention as many of the speeches as possible. There have been some fantastic speeches, some serious comments have been made, but we have also heard some very good humour. First, let me mention the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It has been a pleasure to be her Whip for the past 18 months, and one could not find a more dedicated public servant. She has had a distinguished career in this House. She has been the Home Secretary and, as we all know, the Prime Minister. Despite holding those great offices, she has always, every week, been back to her constituency to knock on doors and speak to her constituents. I know from a friend of mine that she has had regular surgeries, regardless of the role she has held in this House.

On the way my right hon. Friend has dealt with things since she was Prime Minister, I would call it—this is a crude term—“old school dedication”. She has assiduously attended this House and spoken in a huge number of debates. She is invariably here to vote. As I say, it has been a pleasure to deal with her closely for the past 18 months. I also pay tribute to Sir Philip May, who has been an excellent aid to my right hon. Friend. It was good to hear her talk about our democracy and the threat to it, and why we should always promote democracy. The speech she made was of the highest quality, as ever.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) told us that she had made 9,800 speeches in her 42 years in this House and in that time had never rebelled once. That is a Whip’s dream and I have every admiration for her. She is a great campaigner, has done a massive amount for her constituents and has been a great representative in this place.

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) also made a very good speech. If he does not mind, I shall call him the humble crofter—it is meant in the greatest of spirits; that is how we affectionately know him on the Conservative Benches. I always used to enjoy Prime Minister’s questions when he was the leader of his party. At times, it got a bit tasty and adversarial, on both sides, but I can attest to the fact that in the Tea Room one could always have a good, civil and pleasant conversation with him, and I thank him for that. He was absolutely right in saying that we are all here to try to improve the lives of our constituents and for the right reasons. He was also right to say, “ Leave whipping to the Whips”, which is a very good principle.

I also want to talk briefly about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who was an excellent Defence Secretary. He saw the problems in Ukraine with Russia’s invasion of it a long time before they happened. He did a massive amount of groundwork that was under the radar at the time. He also reminded us about the part that the families of Members of Parliament play. That is really important and I wish to thank my wife, Suzanne, my son, Oliver, and my daughter, Martha, who have been huge supporters to me over the past 14 years and will doubtless be huge supporters to me during the general election campaign.

The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) told a lovely story about being chastised by the great Betty Boothroyd, and she was right to mention the conventions and protocols of this House. They can often be easily forgotten when we are in the heat of battle. They are important for the workings of this House. It is important that this House shows how to operate democracy not just in this country, but across the world.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) talked about how he overcame his dyslexia to become a Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. It is important to inspire future generations to overcome adversity and get here. He also talked about what he did during the pandemic to meet the massive challenges across the country. I thank him for his work. He also mentioned the importance of special advisers. I pay tribute to the Chief Whip’s special adviser, Emma Pryor, who has done a massive amount for the Government.

I had two stints with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) at what was the Department for Communities and Local Government, and then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. My abiding memory of that second stint, which unfortunately was only for two months, is of working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 in the 40° heat of the Committee Room. We both knew that we were on our bike, so to speak, but I remember that on the final day of the Bill Committee, he came to sit in the Gallery and watch the whole thing. That is the mark of the man. I thank him very much for all the support, guidance and help that he has given me over my time in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) went through the important work that he has been doing for many years on the Public Accounts Committee to hold the Government and public services to account. I remember spending many a happy hour with him on the Housing and Planning Act 2016, where he showed his depth of knowledge about self-build housing. I hope that, over time, more of the things that he has advocated for come to fruition, because he has made valid points.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) for his speech, for the leadership that he has shown on climate issues and for his work as COP26 President.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) made an excellent speech. Sadly, the Football Governance Bill that she has championed has not made it through the wash-up, but I hope that the next Government will take it up and deliver on it. She was very kind to me. When I was the pairing Whip, I gave her a slip to go and speak to Manchester United. She turned back up at the Whips Office with a signed Manchester United football that I gave to the Warwickshire air ambulance charity, which auctioned it for £400. I was grateful to her for that.

I think forthright is the word that I would use to describe my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has been an excellent Member of the House. Usually, Members of Parliament display a great deal of loyalty because they want to get preferment and a ministerial role. He spent a lot of time rebelling but, despite that, secured a ministerial role. Having worked alongside him during his stint as the Northern Powerhouse Minister, I can say what an excellent job he did.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made a characteristic speech. The man is the most expensive MP in Parliament and the MP for white van man—quite literally. His work on the fuel duty, which has been frozen, or actually reduced, since 2011, has been phenomenal. He has cost the Treasury billions of pounds, but he has done a massive service to his constituents and mine—to all of our constituents—to help them cope with the cost of living.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) reeled off a huge list of achievements, particularly as a Health Minister. I thank him for his work.

It was a pleasure to serve with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) in the Whips Office. She does not look like it, but she is a true grafter not just for her constituents but for the Government, particularly in her role as Vice Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household. In the time that I was working with her, she made a huge effort to support the welfare of many of her colleagues, and I thank her for that. She also did a huge amount during the pandemic as a Health Minister. It was good to hear her reflections on that difficult period for the country.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) did not speak for as long as I expected—he obviously was not charging by the unit today. I was lucky enough to be the Minister responsible for local government for two and a half years. He had that role too, and I know how much he enjoyed it and the good work that he did. He was also pubs Minister, as was I, and as you have always wanted to be, Mr Deputy Speaker. If my hon. and learned Friend will indulge me, I recall a Westminster Hall debate in which he was described as the pint-sized pubs Minister. He took it all in his stride and with his characteristic great heart. One someone who has been a Minister, it is quite easy to drift away, but he has not done that. He took on the role of Chair of the Justice Committee, and he is one of the most assiduous and prolific contributors in this Chamber. He will be missed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) talked about the changing nature of the work of MPs since he came into the House. It has certainly changed in the 14 years that I have been here. I know how hard he has worked for his constituents. A friend of mine was eternally grateful when he managed to save the ground of Old Emanuel RFC in his constituency. That is the type of work that is invaluable from a Member of Parliament for constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) talked about the huge events that have taken place since he has been in this House. He rightly mentioned the Iraq war, the financial crisis, Brexit and covid. He highlighted the world-changing events over the last 20 years and what Governments over that time have had to contend with. He mentioned the importance of children’s social care and children’s development, particularly in the first 1,000 days, and I agreed with his points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) talked about his achievements as a UK trade envoy, and I thank him for his service and dedication to that role over a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) reeled off a catalogue of achievements, especially his work on baby loss, parental bereavement, children’s services and special educational needs, which is so important to many young people and families across the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) made a very pertinent point about Members of Parliament gaining experience. The armed forces parliamentary scheme has a great deal of value for Members of Parliament who have not been in the forces. After being on the scheme, they understand more about our forces and what being a member of our brave armed forces is about and how they often have to work in difficult circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) made a very self-deprecating speech. I recall working with him very closely when we tried to stop the disbanding of the 2nd Regiment of the Royal Fusiliers. Sadly, we were not successful, but he did a massive amount of work on that. All I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is: pedicabs. I congratulate her on that legislation, because it will make central London safer and more welcoming to visitors. I thank her for that.

On the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), we all want a legacy from our time here in the House. She certainly has that in the British Sign Language Act 2022 and the work she has done for British Sign Language. She was right to point out the importance for this and the next Government of ensuring that there is support for people who are deaf and that we make things accessible.

My abiding memory of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), from when I was growing up, is him with his head sticking out of a tank—I think it was in Kosovo or Bosnia. He is a very gallant gentleman and, in his own inimitable style, he talked about his 14 years in this place and the hazards of Hansard, with which he may have had issues at times. He is a true friend and a very loyal colleague to many.

[Matt Hancock]

While the Minister has been on his feet, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has announced that he will not be standing for election again. He has served almost entirely within the Cabinet over the past 14 years, and I am sure that he would have participated in this debate, had he had the opportunity. I am sure that the Minister will want to make some remarks about him, too.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has a significant legacy through his work as Education Secretary. He was not always popular, but we now have significantly more good and outstanding schools in this country following 14 years of a Conservative Government and his work. The English education system has gone up the league table, and we now have the best readers in the western world. We have also gone up the league tables in reading, writing and maths, and he can be very proud of that record, as can this Government.

Before I make my final remarks, I would like to thank MPs’ staff, who do a huge amount of work throughout the year and over the course of a Parliament. They do a lot of work that people do not see or acknowledge, but they give a massive amount of support to Members of Parliament. I would like to thank Jeff Clarke, Alan Farnell, Martyn Punyer, Jonathan Collett, Laura Thurston and Steph Henshaw, who work in my offices.

I would also like to thank the House staff, including the security, the police officers who keep us safe, and the Doorkeepers—if you want to know anything that is going on in this place, ask the Doorkeepers. They are a reliable source of information, but they are also a very important part of the work that we do here. Just like the Deputy Speakers and the Opposition parties’ Whips Offices, the Doorkeepers are an integral part of running this place. That was particularly important when we sent most Members of Parliament back home during the covid pandemic lockdowns and ran a virtual Parliament, when co-operation was most needed. I would also like to thank the officials who support the Whips Office, and I thank the Leader of the House’s officials on her behalf.

To conclude, I wish those standing in the election a very safe campaign. I hope that my colleagues on this side of the House who are standing again are returned, and I wish them the best of luck. On behalf of the House, I wish those standing down the very best in whatever they are going on to do once they leave this place. I thank them for their service, and for their dedication to their constituents and this place, over the time that they have been here.

Disabled People on Benefits: EHRC Investigation

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

Let me first reflect on the Secretary of State’s appearance at the Select Committee. I reiterate that, as he said yesterday, the investigation of the Department is based on a suspicion that something has occurred; that is not in and of itself conclusive proof. The DWP rightly takes its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty, incredibly seriously, and will continue to co-operate with the commission on its investigation. I hope that helps the hon. Lady. We want everyone in the DWP to be able to support customers in an appropriate manner, according to the individual’s needs. Our mental health training and reasonable adjustments guidance helps to empower our colleagues by giving them the skills to support every customer.

It has been the greatest privilege of my life to have been in the most amazing, life-changing Department for almost all of the last five years. We are fully committed to listening to our customers and their representatives about their needs, and to learning from them. Of course people will be concerned about the EHRC’s response, and the Department is genuinely disappointed, because we are constantly learning; work is ongoing to strengthen guidance and training through continuous improvement activity. Our colleagues are local people who live in their community. They know their community and what people need. Whether people are coming through the door are from a local special school, have been made redundant, or have a health condition, DWP staff know those people and want to reassure them. We will continue to give them the necessary tools, and have confidence that our Department will respond in the right way to our most vulnerable customers.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

As I depart this House as a Conservative MP, I thank you, Sir Roger, for your service and mentoring over my years here. Will the Minister make sure that in the response to the investigation, those working in jobcentres and DWP offices across the country are given the support that they need to do their job? In West Suffolk, they do that job excellently, brilliantly led by Julia Nix, who frankly deserves an honour. It has been a pleasure to work with those people. When the Minister considers the investigation, will she look not only at physical disabilities, including engagement with those who support wheelchair use, but hidden disabilities such as neurodivergent conditions, to the extent that they are disabilities, and ensure that they are at the heart of the response?

[Mims Davies]

I welcome back my right hon. Friend, from whom I learned so much as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. It is pleasing to know that his work on neurodiversity and understanding others continues to be at the heart of what he brings to this House, even in his last few moments here. I was recently at Neurobox in Cambridge, where dyslexia needs were discussed, as well as the wider need in the labour market to learn about understanding, and helping people through, the Access to Work scheme. My right hon. Friend’s interest was mentioned there. Whether we are talking about the Buckland review, the lilac review on entrepreneurship, which I mentioned, or partnerships in communities, such as with Julia Nix, who is stellar leader, those messages are important for those who only hear about the experience of the DWP through the mouths of those in this House. I urge people to go and see their local jobcentre. This week there is a “recruit Britain” campaign, backed by employers, to enable people to understand our jobcentres’ power to bring about change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am very much looking forward to going to the Work and Pensions Committee to discuss this very topic this coming Wednesday. It is disappointing that the hon. Member does not recognise that, despite the unprecedented challenges of covid, we once again saw an increase in disability employment over the past year. The figure now stands at 1.5 million since 2013, with the disability employment gap continuing to close. This Government are absolutely committed to their target of 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Could the Secretary of State—or the Minister for Pensions, who is doing such great work in this area—explain what they are doing to ensure that when pensions are invested, the environmental, social and governance agenda is about incentivising high-quality sustainable products across the world, for instance in Africa, and not just becoming a box-ticking exercise here at home?

[Guy Opperman]

I will take my right hon. Friend’s compliment. The UK is the first country in the world to address the social elements of ESG. We have produced a call for evidence, “Consideration of social risks and opportunities by occupational pension schemes”, and I would encourage everyone to get involved with that. That will genuinely transform the supply chain, access to finance and investment in all parts of the world, but particularly in respect of Africa.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

One day, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like me, God willing, will grow old. I want to concentrate on the UK’s care system for the elderly. We have heard much today about benefits and changes to Remploy, but I want to focus a bit more on something that was touched on earlier—the need to provide social care for our elderly and for those with permanent and long-term disabilities, and the urgent need for reform.

I am motivated in this by thinking not only of my own growing old—I hope—and of all those in this Chamber, but family experience and my experience of supporting a friend of my age who, at the age of 28, sadly had a stroke and is now confined to a wheelchair and has to live with permanent care. Supporting him, and starting a trust to support him, gave me the personal experience of trying to navigate the care system for those with permanent disabilities, and it brought into sharp relief the difficulties that that brings to many people who support disabled people, whether they are of what would otherwise be working age or in old age.

The Dilnot commission has been the most important step forward in this area for many years. Criticisms of inaction can be levelled not only at the previous Government but at previous Governments. This is an area where cross-party support and a lack of political tension is necessary.

Over the past decade, 200,000 people have sold their homes to pay for their care. Yet more people, who did not have assets, have had to survive with substandard care. BUPA has estimated that in a decade, there will be a shortfall of 100,000 care home places unless action is taken. In the same period that spending on the NHS has risen by about £25 billion, spending on social care for the elderly has risen by only £43 million. Given that 400,000 elderly people are in care homes and that more than £7 billion was announced for this area in the spending review, we need to ensure that Government support is focused and that financial support is brought in from wherever possible to strengthen this crucial sector.

I pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done to bring forward proposals and ensure that we are moving in the right direction. The introduction of carers breaks is a welcome step forward. I warmly welcome the linking of social care and health care budgets in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which will tie together what have too often been disparate functions.

It is clear that there is also a need for reform in self-funding. There must be support for vulnerable elderly people who do not have access, but we must also ensure that those who do have access do not have to lose their home to pay for their care. The problem is the lack of an insurance market. We can insure all sorts of things in life. The moustache of Mervyn Hughes, the great cricketer, was once insured for £200,000, Kylie Minogue’s rear was insured for $5 million, Heidi Klum’s legs for $2 million and Cristiano Ronaldo’s legs for €100 million. However, I cannot take out insurance for the possibility that I will have to spend many years in social care. Nobody in this country can insure against the small chance that they will need very expensive care in their old age.

The problem is the uncertainty over the cost. For many of us, there will be no care costs at all. For most of us, the costs will be relatively small. For a small proportion of people, however, there will be very high and uncertain costs. There is a role for Government in ensuring that the market works in tackling the uncertainty. There is uncertainty over not only what the cost will be, but who will be hit with the cost.

That brings me to the final point about why this matter is so important. This is not only a practical problem, but a problem of values. Those who save hard and work hard for their whole life feel that they are penalised by a care system that takes away what they have worked for. Those who put money aside and save for their retirement look for a something-for-something system in which people get out according to what they put in. We must look after our most vulnerable and end the scandal of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. I hope that we will come forward soon with serious proposals to take this injustice away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am delighted to welcome the contributions to this afternoon’s debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who just spoke so powerfully, for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck). They all made their contributions in their own distinctive ways. We have covered some of the areas identified in the motion.

I kick off by talking about the social care crisis, identified by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. I hope that we are now at a point in discussion where we can reach a cross-party consensus on social care. Both those Members identified the major difficulties. I think we should remember that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who invited the Government to come into those cross-party discussions, having had a pretty bruising experience prior to the last general election when we thought we might have had a basis for moving forward. I certainly welcome the fact that we are treating this issue with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves. However, my image of the contribution of the hon. Gentleman is that he goes around working out how much people’s bottoms and legs can be insured for. He is not normally prone to humour, but I thought that was a bit of light-heartedness on his part.

The Minister with responsibility for disabled people paints a picture that, frankly, bears no relation to the reality of the lives of disabled people and their families and carers. When I heard her contribution, I wondered which world she was living in. She is a quiet and impressive speaker, although she showed today that she can sometimes be provoked. She somehow gives the impression that it will be all right on the night and that tens of thousands of people out there can be expected to say, “Well, that’s fine, Minister for Disabled People. We know that we are suffering”—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington identified—“but we do not know what is in front of us; we have been vilified in the press, not just by media reporters, but by some ill-considered briefings from some politicians.”

The words of the Minister do not chime with the reality of what people are feeling out there. Over the past couple of years disabled people have been undermined and their confidence shattered, and they are living in a climate of fear. There has been an increase in hate crime. According to a recent report by the university of Glasgow for Inclusion London, the amount of negative reporting of disability in the print media has increased dramatically. People out there who are not claiming disability benefits now think that everyone who is claiming a disability benefit is a skiver. I hope that one day the Secretary of State will rebut the comments that are being made in some tabloid newspapers.

Let me dispel one or two of the myths that have been perpetrated here today. One is that lifetime and indefinite awards will never see the light of day again. In fact the lifetime award was replaced in 2000, because we recognised that it conveyed a mixed message. There has also been a dodgy use of statistics on all sorts of disability benefits, particularly by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He said that 75% of incapacity benefit claimants were fit for work, but when the position was examined properly, the figure proved to be as low as 37%.

An image or background has been created to justify a welfare reform programme that is flawed, at least in its implementation. We talk in general terms about disabled people and those who receive disability living allowance, but hundreds of thousands of people who have arthritis, learning disabilities or psychosis rely on the additional cost payment provided by DLA for their everyday lives.

Let me deal very briefly with Remploy, which has already been dealt with extensively today. Yes, we had to wrestle with some of the difficulties—I am certainly not going to run away from that—but the Minister gave only part of the picture. Any Member who was in the House before the last modernisation programme for Remploy knows that we engaged in an extensive and lengthy consultation. All Members of Parliament had all the figures in front of them from the moment that we embarked on that modernisation programme. What we did not do was organise a 90-day consultation involving people who were already feeling vulnerable because of all the other stuff that was going on around them, and embark on a factory programme without building elements of support into it.

Particularly important is the cumulative impact, which has not been addressed today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report:

“Given the breadth of the current reforms, the Government should publish a unified assessment of the likely cumulative impact of the proposals”.

The Government replied:

“The ability to undertake cumulative analysis is limited because of the complexity of the modelling required”.

So a Government who have tens of thousands of civil servants in the DWP are telling disabled people that, despite all that expertise, they cannot put together a cumulative assessment of what is happening to their lives. I think that it is to the shame of the Secretary of State that he is not prepared to put the big picture out there in front of people. The Joint Committee also said that we were in danger of breaching our commitment under the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities by posing a threat to their right to independent living.

Let me put a very brief cumulative impact assessment before the House. The DWP’s own analysis concluded that the benefit cap would have a disproportionate impact on households containing a disabled person, which were

“more likely to be affected”.

The Prime Minister has always dodged and weaved on this, but the reality is that the sum will be reduced by half under the new universal credit. The “Counting the Costs 2012” report by Contact a Family found that it costs three times more to raise a disabled child, and 73% of its respondents said they believe welfare reform will make them poorer. Mencap says 32% of local authorities have cut day care services in the past three years. The cumulative effect is growing. Some 57% of people with a learning disability currently receive no services at all, despite being known to their social care departments. Disability Rights UK has highlighted how losing DLA will impact on disabled people’s opportunities to get a job.

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Lady talks about the need to see the big picture. Will she therefore correct something the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said in his opening speech? He said unemployment is rising, when today’s figures show a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment, and that should be welcomed.

[Mrs McGuire]

I know the hon. Gentleman from our days serving together on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know how good he is with figures, and how he can bandy them around. The reality is that £9 billion more will be needed to pay for unemployment benefit. That is the real statistic.

[Matthew Hancock]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is the real statistic. We in this House bandy figures around, but the reality is that we are talking about people who are finding themselves—day after day, week after week, month after month—being unable to get a job. That is the reality: 2.5 million unemployed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is right. I personally intervened as Minister to say that that offshoring should not take place. It is important that we do not see Government-controlled employment move offshore. We have a job to try to maximise employment in this country, and I pay tribute to all those involved in that work force for drawing our attention to the issue and the challenge. It is by far the best option to see people investing in the UK. It is particularly gratifying to see the contact centre industry around the UK increasingly reopening centres, recognising that British workers are far better at delivering good customer service than their counterparts in other parts of the world.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of work experience programmes on employment prospects.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of work experience programmes on employment prospects.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Early indications show that the work experience programme is proving extremely successful. The first figures we published for the period up to August show that more than half the young people starting a work experience placement under the scheme are off benefits within three months. As the scheme is extremely cost-effective, that is welcome news.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the Minister visit one such successful work experience programme in Haverhill in my constituency, where youth unemployment has fallen by 15% since the programme started? Some 40% of young unemployed people are on the programme and, as with the national average, half of them are going into full-time jobs, even where there were no vacancies.

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to the staff of Jobcentre Plus in my hon. Friend’s constituency for their part in delivering a successful scheme. I will be delighted, the next time I am in Suffolk, to drop in with him to meet and pay tribute to them for what they have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would have thought he would welcome the idea that as we move to the new benefit, we are planning to cash-protect those who are already in receipt of other benefits. I do not think I really need to take too many lessons from his party, because when it scrapped the 10p tax band, it did not cash-protect anybody.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State accept that in ensuring that the transition means that people are cash-protected, he is managing to introduce the universal benefit, which would otherwise be almost impossible to do? That universal benefit will be of benefit to the work incentives of people up and down the country.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is more welcoming of the policy than the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). Cash protection is there to protect those whose circumstances mean that they may have lost out slightly in the change to universal credit. They will not, because we will ensure that they are smoothed into the universal credit system unless there is a significant change in their circumstances. That is a positive gesture from the Government, and as I said, we do not need any lessons from Labour Members, who did not cash-protect people who were damaged when they scrapped the 10p starting rate.

Welfare Reform Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Uppal]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but I go back to the corrosive effect that that is having on society. There are people living cheek by jowl with the 20,000 families that she has mentioned, who are aware of the situation.

A constituent spoke to me who comes from one of the handful of families on her road who actually work. The rest of the families on her street have made a conscious life choice to live off benefits. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) may nod, sigh and take a deep breath, but I am faced in my weekly surgeries by people who live in the real world—people who have to deal with the hard reality of life. My constituent had to face ridicule for going to work. That is the situation that we have.

As I have said before in this House, I have experienced poverty in my life. I have not read about it in a book or dealt with it at arm’s length from behind a desk; I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced it in my family. That is why I am passionate about it and why I was proud to sit on the Committee. Too often, the issues that we talk about are detached from the reality of life. This legislation is not about appealing to red-top newspapers or making grand-standing statements, as was said in Committee, but about tackling the issue head-on. Hon. Members have talked about the number of jobs created over the past decade that were taken by foreigners who came to these shores with an ethos of working. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy mentioned eastern Europeans. My family have gone through that experience. We came to this country with an ethos of working; that was our aspiration. The idea that we could claim benefits and use the system to support us was anathema to us. That idea is what this Bill tackles.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s powerful speech. Does he agree that 20,000 families who have never worked is simply 20,000 too many?

[Paul Uppal]

Absolutely; the intervention from the hon. Member for Westminster North was very telling. It missed the point about the message that Governments send out. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising individuals and families; it is the system that is corrosive. If the system is corrosive and, to quote my constituent, rewards idleness, what do we expect of human beings? I have faith in the British public. We have budding entrepreneurs and young people who have aspirations to achieve the best that they can. However, through unintended consequences, aspiration has been undermined, particularly over the past 10 years. I have seen that so often when I meet young people. They have a choice between work and a life on benefits. They have looked me in the eye and said that a life on benefits is not such a bad option.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

One consequence of the reforms to housing benefit will be that the local housing market will change. We anticipate, for example, that some of the larger properties might find themselves converted into houses in multiple occupation, although we do not know exactly what will happen. One problem is that over many years we have seen inadequate house building taking place under the hon. Lady’s Government.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In the Public Accounts Committee, we heard from civil servants about the impact of housing benefit and other benefits that make for an extremely complex and complicated benefit system. We have also heard about the enthusiasm for having a universal benefit as a way of cutting through that. Talking of representations, would not these changes have been easier had we not had representations on where the money was left?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is quite right that Labour Members’ answer to most questions is “More money,” but when we asked where the money had gone, we were told that there was none. Housing benefit is probably one of the most complicated benefits in the system; it is at the end of the line when everything else has been worked out. The sooner we can integrate it into universal credit, the better.

Welfare Reform

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are introducing the Work programme as fast as we can, and the summer target for that is critical. It will make a huge difference. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the biggest gap is the one left to us by the last Government, as a result of the major deficit and their failure to fund any of the programmes that they said they would.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I warmly welcome today’s announcement, like Members on both sides of the House. I also welcome the rhetorical conversion of the Labour party to the importance of incentives and marginal withdrawal rates. It is a pity that they have not been a part of the discussion over the past decade. Once the programme is fully implemented, how many people will benefit from lower marginal withdrawal rates?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I can give my hon. Friend the exact figures later. I can tell him now, however, that there will be a huge uptake, because the marginal withdrawal rates will be so much better for those going back to work. I hope he will forgive me if I cannot give the figures on the spot. However, they will be significant, and people going back to work will benefit enormously. That will be a real incentive for those going back to work. He talked about how the Labour party has been converted. Sometimes, listening to Labour Members’ questions, I wonder whether they have been converted or just hate the idea that somebody is doing something they should have done 10 years ago.

Housing Benefit

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress.

According to a study commissioned by Shelter from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research—I wonder if the Government will dispute the integrity of that body—more than four in 10, or 42%, of landlords currently letting to LHA claimants planned to scale back. Shelter estimates that that will equate to 100,000 landlords. Liz Peace, the chief executive of the British Property Federation, said:

“Landlords might decide to abandon the social sector.”

The Conservative Mayor of London—I wonder what the Government will say in relation to this evidence—says that the Government’s proposals will lead to

“the loss of the private rented sector as a major safety net for London boroughs”.

He continued:

“We expect landlords to leave the housing benefit market due to the perceived instability of housing benefit in the short and medium term.”

Those are the words not of the Labour Front Bench, but of Boris Johnson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

My right hon. Friend’s expertise is well revealed in his question. I have been told to avoid hysteria and be careful and measured, but any of us who recollect the impact of the community charge, when a number of poor people started with a small but rapidly accumulating debt and ended up owing significant arrears to local authorities—which ultimately had to write off those debts—have reason to be very cautious before endorsing these proposals.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

No. I am keen to make a little progress, by looking at the individual measures that the Government are advancing.

When the Secretary of State speaks, will he explain why the Department for Work and Pensions is not producing an impact assessment on the whole package of changes to housing benefit before the House? An assessment has been made of the introduction of the LHA measures during 2011-12, as the Social Security Advisory Commission requires, but that is partial, and of course does not take account of the effect of the consumer prices index cap on LHA rates from 2013.

We would also expect a separate impact assessment of the jobseeker’s allowance measure and social sector size limits to follow once the secondary legislation is published. At this stage, however, it is unclear whether an assessment will be made of the CPI changes. The fact that no comprehensive impact assessment has been completed before the announcement does nothing to reduce the widespread anxiety about this package of reforms. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will now accept the concerns of his colleagues and undertake to publish an assessment of the whole package.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I will come to the issue of the cap. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the importance and seriousness of this debate by simply reading out the questions the Whips have given him. In terms of the cumulative effect, which is what we were talking about, this package involves £1.8 billion-worth of cuts. The measure that he identifies accounts for £65 million of that £1.8 billion. One of the many attributes missing on the Government Benches is a sense of proportion.

Let us look at some of the individual measures. Labour Members do not have any objection in principle to asking younger single adults to live in a shared house or flat—after all, that is what has happened a great deal in the private sector. Yet it is revealing that the Chancellor, in his spending review statement to the House, described this as a chance to limit the ability to live on housing benefit as a lifestyle choice. So why have the Government not produced an impact assessment for these proposals? How can we be reassured that there will be sufficient supply to accommodate additional people and that the specific needs of young people in special circumstances, such as the disabled, will be addressed before this measure is introduced?

On the social sector, even the Government themselves seem to be struggling to understand some of the proposals. The June Budget promised to change housing entitlements for people of working age in the social sector. Can the Secretary of State explain what that means, and whether it will mean forcing people to move out of their council homes when their children turn 18? The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, who has already contributed to the debate, recently said in an answer to a written question:

“The detailed policy design of this change is still being developed.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 565W.]

In that case, why are the Government so confident that it will save £490 million?

Let us move on to the issue of the CPI. The shadow Chancellor has made it clear that we would support changing the uprating of benefits for a time-limited period, but this is not what the Government propose in relation to housing benefit. Index-linking local housing allowance to the CPI, which does not in any way reflect housing costs, means that the LHA’s value will drop substantially against rising rent levels, and households will increasingly find themselves priced out of all but the poorest-quality accommodation.

The impact is clear if we view the decade from 1997 to 2007 and then project forward. During those 10 years rents increased by 70%, while the CPI—the new inflation index that the Government have chosen—increased by only 20%. On that projection, by 2020 housing benefit based on CPI will have fallen so far behind private rents that it may cover only 10% of the available property. In Manchester it would cover only 5% of available two-bedroom flats, and in parts of Winchester, within 10 to 12 years not a single two-bedroom home would be affordable on housing benefit.

I ask Ministers in all seriousness whether it is coincidental that in evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions last week, Lord Freud suggested that the coalition Government now saw it as

“quite valuable to rewrite the homelessness legislation”

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether that is indeed the case, and can he further assure the House that the Government are not simply seeking to rewrite the rules for those threatened by homelessness as they rewrote the rules for the unemployed in the 1980s and ’90s, parking a generation of people in the unemployment figures?

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman is being careful not to set out the Labour party’s position on the cap. Does he agree with his leader, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), or does he agree with the shadow Health Secretary, who said nine days ago:

“Those top level benefits do need to be capped”?

[Mr Alexander]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), introduced an option for dealing with extreme cases in the March budget—excluding a proportion of the highest rents from the calculation of the median. I am sure that given his past employment, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) will be aware of that change. As I have previously stated, I have no objection in principle to a cap, if it is introduced on a staged timetable. I commend to him the speech that I gave at the Institute for Public Policy Research as recently as Friday. However, we have to ask whether a national cap is the most appropriate plan, or whether a regional cap would target the very highest claims in all regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I will not give way again.

In the context of the understanding of fairness, let us look at what the Government are doing. We have heard talk about the cap, and it is abundantly obvious that it is not fair for a family or an individual to be able to claim more in housing benefit than an average family takes home in earnings in any given week, month or year. If we set the cap at £20,000 a year, that will still be a very high level. That is the equivalent of earning just over £26,000 a year, as that is what someone would need to earn to have the income to pay that amount of rent without claiming housing benefit support. That is more than the average wage of my constituents, and more than the average wage in the north-east generally. It is also more than the average wage in many of the constituencies of Members on both sides of the House. We cannot expect people who work hard but do not earn large sums of money to pay tax to subsidise individuals and families who are unable to work, for whatever reason, to live in homes that those taxpayers themselves could not afford.

This is an important issue, but there are many other measures involved. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it was fair to use the 30th percentile to set the level at which housing benefit would be paid in any given area. The Department’s research has shown that, in any given area, just over 30% of properties would be available within that price band, and I suggest that that makes it abundantly obvious that this is not an unreasonable step. Given the difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves, this is a way of finding some of the necessary savings while ensuring that those who need help will still get it. It will ensure that support will be there for those who will benefit from it most, while not unfairly disadvantaging the people who work hard to pay their taxes to enable this to happen. It is important to look at these points in the round, and in the context of the world in which we live today.

Many Opposition Members are not keen to talk about discretionary housing payments because, for many of those who hit particular hardship, such payments will increase. This will help individuals who are in danger of losing their homes, who fall through the gaps between policies or who find themselves in difficulty through no fault of their own. The Government are increasing the provision to £140 million over five years to ensure that, when people are in particular need or when their circumstances are particularly difficult, help is there to ensure that they can stay in their homes and communities. People should not be made homeless by the steps that are being taken, and the Government are taking steps to ensure that that does not happen.

Another measure that Opposition Members often overlook relates to overnight carers. At the moment, the fact that someone has an overnight carer, because they have a disability or for any other reason, is not accounted for when calculating the amount of housing benefit they receive. The Government will change that, and 15,000 people who currently have overnight carers but are not entitled to have the need to provide accommodation for them taken into account in their housing benefit allowance will be better off as a direct result. Their needs will specifically be catered for in a way that, disgracefully, has not been the case for many years.

Lots of changes are taking place in housing benefit, as well as right across the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments. Opposition Members are right to raise concerns, when they have them, and to call for a debate when that is appropriate. When I look at the motion today, however, I find it most striking that they have suggested no alternatives. This is not an Opposition who are here to put forward alternative proposals or an alternative plan to deal with some of the problems we face. It is an Opposition who are opposing for opposition’s sake.

[Matthew Hancock]

I compliment my hon. Friend on his extremely fluent speech. In talking about the tone of this debate, does he agree that it is important not to make scaremongering comments that make people ill at ease when the changes being made are very important to get a grip on this particular budget?

[James Wharton]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The point has been raised a few times already—that the tone of this debate in public and in the media has not necessarily been as it should. When we are talking about people’s homes, people’s allowances and changes that will affect people’s lives, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do so in a careful, measured and sensible way.