Budget Resolutions
Matt Western Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
My point is that the externalities that I referred to, such as covid and the war between Ukraine and Russia, have impacted economies around the world. Relative to other economies, and looking at the OBR’s forecast over the next five years, we will have a growth record that is up there and better than many of our major competitors, including countries such as Germany.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
To clarify a point that perhaps I have misunderstood, what is the growth per capita record for the last seven quarters?
Matt Western
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not enough appropriate sheltered housing has been built over the past 14 years? Given the ageing population, surely we should be making greater provision.
Sir Christopher Chope
My constituency has an enormous amount of sheltered housing and housing specifically for pensioners. A lot of it is vacant—it has been built, but it is not occupied at the moment. I am not giving a plug for Churchill or any of the other housing developers, but I do not think that issue is really the key. The key is knocking some heads together and getting them to realise that when somebody is ready to leave hospital, they do so and that there are significant penalties if they do not.
There are lots of other examples of where we have a productivity crisis. It is worth recalling that Sir Roy Griffiths, who was brought in by Margaret Thatcher in 1985 to try to introduce greater efficiency into the health service, said
“if Florence Nightingale were carrying her lamp through the corridors of the NHS today she would almost certainly be searching for the people in charge”.
One could bring that up to date now and say that today Florence Nightingale would almost certainly be looking for anyone willing to get to grips with low productivity in the NHS. I hope that the Government will get a lot more serious about the issue than they have been hitherto.
My final point is about the dynamism that comes to the economy if we reduce taxes and encourage growth through that means. In his speech, the Chancellor made passing reference to Arthur Laffer and his curve. Some of my hon. Friends may have been present at a previous dinner organised by the Centre for Policy Studies at which the speaker was Dr Laffer himself; I still treasure a napkin that has his handwritten curve on it. Why are we not applying the principles of his curve more widely?
In his aside about Laffer, in the context of reducing capital gains tax from 28% to 24%, the Chancellor was more or less saying, “Well, at last my officials are waking up to the importance of this.” But who is in charge? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister believe in the virtues of the Laffer curve and the dynamism that comes from a low tax, low regulation economy, surely they should be getting a grip on that rather than leaving it to anonymous officialdom.
I hope that we will be able to make more progress on these key issues and demonstrate to the public that there is indeed a big chasm between the two parties vying to form the next Government. We believe in the virtues of low taxes promoting enterprise and increasing productivity, particularly in the public sector. The other lot are beholden, particularly to the unions, which takes me back to where I started off in politics: when I was first elected to Wandsworth Borough Council, 50 years ago this week.
Rushanara Ali
For a start, the former Prime Minister could certainly donate her earnings to the millions of children now living in poverty—poverty that was worsened by her crashing the economy. The parents of children in my constituency are having to work even more to make ends meet, particularly to pay their mortgages, which in some cases have doubled. That is the consequence of the rot that she and her Chancellor caused by crashing the economy.
Matt Western
On a more serious note, reports allege that, ahead of that mini-Budget, the then Chancellor briefed certain hedge fund managers and they made significant financial gains off the back of it. Surely there should be some comeback on that
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made one announcement in the Budget statement that has not been referred to today but is relevant given the contributions made so far: the Government will sell the last of their remaining stake in NatWest bank, formerly the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. Of course, we all remember that the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, once the world’s largest bank, ran out of money and would have collapsed if not for a complete Government bail-out. It would have gone down and taken with it the livelihoods, jobs and mortgages of millions of people in this country, having an effect on the entire banking system. It has taken us nearly 16 years to get to a position in which the Government can sell their stake in the bank and return it to fully private ownership.
That is an important benchmark, because it is easy to pretend—as a number of hon. Members have tried to do—that 2010, when the Conservative party was elected, was a year zero and there were no issues from the past that we had to deal with. We came into government on the back of that banking crisis. Both parties acknowledged that the bail-out of the banks was necessary, inevitable and the right thing to do, but it came with a cost attached. It came with the recognition that the huge amount of increased Government debt required to take that stake in the banks would at some point have to be paid back, and that the massive shock to the global economy and our economy and the recession it created would lead to consolidations in public spending.
However, it was the Conservative party—working in coalition at the time—that had to put those plans in place. We inherited no detailed plan from the Labour party; no difficult political decisions were made about where spending would be cut or how debt would be repaid. That was entirely left to the Conservative party to do, and that is what we did. We fixed the roof when we had the chance to do so, and because we controlled debt and got it falling again, when the next shock came in the form of the covid pandemic—nothing anyone could have predicted or known about—we were in a position to respond. We could increase borrowing again to make the necessary decisions to protect people’s jobs and homes, create the furlough scheme and give the economy the support it needed. We could make those decisions because we had regained international trust in the British economy and in our Government, and we could borrow money to do so.
Damian Collins
I will in a moment.
Yes, borrowing has gone up, and taxes have gone up to pay for it. That is an inevitable consequence of those two massive global events that took place: one under the last Labour Government; and one under the Conservative Government in the shape of the covid pandemic. I do not remember the Labour party ever criticising the furlough scheme or the support that was put in place, or suggesting that it should not have been done.
Damian Collins
No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that we picked up the pieces of an international banking crisis, with no plan from the previous Government for how that would be paid for. It was entirely down to the Conservative party to find that money. The criticism was that the previous Labour Government were increasing borrowing before the banking crisis hit. They were already borrowing for political reasons—to sustain spending they could not afford—and then had to bail out the banks on top of that. If Members are going to criticise the past 14 years of Government, let us start where the problem started, which was before we came into power. We were required to pick up the pieces of the mess we inherited.
There are big things that happen, which require responsible Governments to take big, responsible decisions. That sometimes means that they have to put up taxes in order to pay for borrowing to get through a crisis. Let us not pretend that that is not the case, but the question is whether Governments have a serious, credible plan and whether they are prepared to be honest with the British people about what that plan entails. On the back of the pandemic, we have had to put up taxes and borrowing to pay for that. We have done that, and we are now at a decision point. As the economy recovers and the OBR projects that debt will fall, what can we do? What path should we go down? As the Chancellor has set out, the priority of this Government is to recognise that because taxes had to go up to pay for the pandemic, we want to reduce taxes when we can. We want to lift that burden from the British people and start to reduce taxes.
If any hon. Members want to come in at this point, I am happy to give way.
Matt Western
I will, because I was trying to intervene a few moments ago, as the hon. Gentleman will hopefully recall. My point was simply going to be that during the mid-2010s, there was a fantastic opportunity to invest in our infrastructure—repairing our schools and so on—when interest rates were at a record long-term low, and that opportunity was missed. Does the hon. Gentleman not regret that?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I absolutely concur with his points about the creative sector; it is one of the absolute gems of the UK, and we need the concerted efforts of those not just in the Government but across the House, and the support of our universities and colleges, to ensure we have the stream of investment to deliver talent. I echo his points on nuclear development, and particularly on the work of Rolls-Royce.
If the public were listening yesterday to the last-chance Chancellor, they would be forgiven for assuming that they have never had it so good. The Chancellor conveniently forgot to mention the kamikaze Budget in September 2022, when the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), crashed the economy, forced up borrowing rates and caused mortgage market mayhem, leaving average mortgage payments £240 a month higher, and businesses struggling with higher rates of interest. The Chancellor now seems to think that we are seeing Lamontian “green shoots”, ignoring the economic wreckage wreaked by the Government’s own vain ideological vandalism after an economic experiment that cost the UK £30 billion. When I say “Lamontian”, I am of course recalling the damage of a previous Conservative Government in the early 1990s.
In his first Budget 16 months ago, the Chancellor promised a “Budget for growth”. Call me a stickler for detail, but what did we get? A recession. The Prime Minister may try to blame covid and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the truth is that our growth is the lowest in the G7, and there is absolutely no reason why the UK should be more affected than any of those nations. Meanwhile, Mayor Andy Street is presiding over the worst-performing region for growth in the United Kingdom. There is a pattern emerging.
I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about this earlier, and it seems that he confirmed that, nationally, we have had seven consecutive quarters of negative growth per capita—in other words, output per individual—which is further contributing to 14 years of failure, including a decade of decay. That is underlined by the fact that real incomes will be lower at the end of this Parliament than at the start. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that households’ average earnings at the start of this year were £2,400 a year lower than at the start of 2021. In the 12 months to September, more people in England were made homeless than bought their first home, and the years of austerity have led to 4.2 million children living in relative poverty.
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced this year’s spring Budget, with a plan to “grow the economy”. Instead, we got a Budget of what I would view as deception, delusion and dithering. The Chancellor did not address any of the urgent issues facing the country right now. It was as though he was rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. There was nothing on reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in schools, hospitals and our universities, nothing on dentistry, nothing on the contaminated blood scandal, and nothing on the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Yesterday’s Budget was more an act of smoke and mirrors. The Chancellor claimed that GDP had risen, that growth was on the up, and that taxes were falling, because he wants to set October 2022 as year zero. However, the public know differently, because they have seen 24 tax rises and are feeling the highest tax burden since world war two. The Resolution Foundation has found that tax rises of around £20 billion were introduced in the last year, and that the Government have a further £17 billion of tax rises set to come into effect immediately after the general election. Meanwhile, unprotected Departments such as the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and DLUHC—local government—will, by 2028-29, face a real per capita spending cut of around 18%. Likewise, the Ministry of Defence will face major cuts.
The Government must be honest about their mistakes. They have to be realistic about the state our country is in, and they must address these issues with long-term solutions. Instead, what they presented us with yesterday was, to put it simply, weak. It was weak on energy prices, which continue to dominate household bills. The Chancellor’s extension of the windfall tax to 2029 fails to address the fact that 6.5 million households, including tens of thousands in my constituency, were living in fuel poverty in October 2023. Meanwhile, British Gas’s profits increased tenfold to £750 million last year. I am afraid that the Government are not doing enough.
The Budget was weak on the housing system, which is broken. The Chancellor offered nothing for those on low incomes in the shape of social rent properties, which are so needed in areas such as Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and the villages in my constituency. The Government are yet to meet their target to build 300,000 new homes in England. Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s solution was to scrap tax breaks for owners of holiday let properties. I agree with that, but it is not enough. Despite the OBR forecasting that real household disposable income per head will fall by 1.5% in 2024, the Chancellor has offered an extension of just six months to the household support fund. That is not enough. The private rental sector is breaking, and people are broken.
The Government are weak on finding long-term solutions to these issues. Overnight we learned that the Chancellor has offered £46 billion of unfunded tax cuts. Once again, the Conservatives are gambling with the public finances and economic stability. They cannot make these promises lightly; we saw the impact of that 15 or 16 months ago.
The Government are weak on supporting the needs of motorists. A paltry £50 a year in potential saved fuel duty pales in comparison with the Government’s insurance premium tax take, based on the astronomic increases in insurance premiums. The insurance premium tax was another tax introduced by a Conservative Government. Meanwhile, 23,000 car drivers a year are making insurance claims for damage from Government potholes. More parochially, I was interested to hear that Warwickshire County Council will receive a devolution deal, though no detail was provided on what that means for the leadership of our area. That is of concern, because the county council is already unable to fulfil its obligations. I will follow that proposal closely.
Elsewhere in his speech, the Chancellor claimed that the Government are doing a great deal for small businesses, yet last year the Office for National Statistics reported that more than 27,000 more businesses closed than opened in the UK. The Federation of Small Businesses’ latest quarterly survey shows that a greater proportion of small businesses expect their performance to worsen over the coming year than expect it to improve. The Chancellor’s increase in the threshold at which small businesses have to register for VAT does not compensate for the seven years for which the threshold has been frozen. Again, it is not enough.
Business investment is faltering. Interest rates are sticky, at a base of 5.25%, although they are likely to fall, just marginally, later this year. That ensures that the UK’s already woeful productivity remains worse than that of all our major competitors. For years, successive Conservative Governments have rejected the need for an industrial strategy. Although I welcome the Chancellor’s investment in life sciences yesterday, the Government are failing to harness the extraordinary power and innovation of our higher education sector. Labour will do better.
Despite all that, the Conservatives still claim that they have done a good job. It concerns me that they may believe that. We have suffered 14 years of them putting their party first and our country second. We have suffered 24 tax rises, while ordinary people struggle to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, get GP appointments and register with non-existent NHS dentists. They are struggling in Rishi’s recession—a Prime Minister who floats loftily above us in his chopper, burning up taxpayers’ money, contactless with the people below. I am afraid that the public view this Government as out of touch, out of ideas and in denial about how they have let our economy go into recession, our schools, hospitals, universities and infrastructure crumble, and our people suffer. They do not feel the cost of that failure, but the rest of us do.
The people want change. They have lost confidence in the Conservatives and they look to Labour—a changed party—to bring stability, strategy and sense to the governance of this country. The country is scarred by 14 years of failure that have spawned a decade of decay. Labour will reduce NHS waiting times and introduce emergency dental appointments and free breakfast clubs. It will establish GB Energy for cheaper, cleaner renewable energy, an industrial strategy council and a national wealth fund, and it will close the energy windfall tax loopholes. That is what the country needs and the public want. They want to see their doctor. They want an NHS dentist in their community. They want their schools to be fully open, and they want their roads resurfaced.
The public will see through the Government’s attempt to steal Labour’s clothes; evidently, they do not quite fit the Prime Minister. First, they borrowed our suggestion for a furlough scheme. Then it was our NHS workforce plan, followed by a watered-down version of our windfall tax. Now, they are hijacking our non-dom tax. However, they remain silent on climate change and the need for a green new deal. We need a plan, a project and an ambition. Let us look to what Biden is doing in the US, and the growth that the US is enjoying of 5%; it is right up there with China and India. Where are we? Flatlining at 0%.
The Government have had more resets than my broadband router, and are even more unreliable. The public are disconnected and tuned out. They do not want to wait a minute longer. For the sake of the great British people, let us have a general election, and may it be on 2 May.
Nigel Huddleston
As the hon. Lady knows, there are always tax information and impact notes—impact assessments —as part of the budgetary process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, in his very strong contribution, reminded us of not only the context in which we took power in 2010, which was far from the golden legacy that the Opposition received in 1997 when they took power, but the challenges that we have faced in power over the last few years. He was also very enthusiastic, as I am, about the opportunities and progress of the creative industries. That is exactly why we have focused on them, and provided more support measures in the Budget, following on from several measures over the last few years. The creative industries are vital to our economy and future growth, growing on average at about double the normal pace of the economy.
I have to call out the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) regarding the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, who has done so much to grow and attract investment in the west midlands. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour council is not without its problems in Birmingham.
Nigel Huddleston
I will happily follow up with the hon. Gentleman, but not now.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned VAT RES, which I was absolutely expecting. He made some really important points in many areas. I will happily follow up with him regarding VAT RES. The Government are considering the OBR’s findings about VAT RES, in the context of the wider public finances, but the Chancellor has expressed that he is always happy to receive further representations.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) mentioned several areas, including SEND, which other colleagues mentioned as well. We know that it is a really important part of the education system and our overall social provision. The Government are investing an initial £105 million over the next four years in building new special free schools, and 20 successful alternative provision free schools as well.
I am aware of the time, so I will conclude my comments. I genuinely thank all Members for their contributions. There have been some extremely interesting contributions today. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) outlined her vision of a clear choice, which I think we might be hearing quite a lot over the coming months. I do believe that there is a clear choice this year: sustainable economic recovery, sound finances, lower taxes, more productive public services, support for businesses and households, optimism, confidence and opportunity for all with the Conservatives, or reckless spending, unfunded promises, higher taxes, pessimism and negativity from the Labour party, with no hope, no clue and no plan. We have a plan, it is working, and I encourage everyone to stick to the Conservatives, and not to risk a Labour Government.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Mr Mohindra.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 11 March.
Labour Market Activity
Matt Western Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I will start by putting my remarks in the context of our economic situation. We are predicted to have the worst growth of any G20 nation bar Russia, which is, of course, heavily sanctioned. We have flatlining productivity, which is not down to the unions, as was perhaps being suggested by the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew)—far from it. If we compare the UK with France, for example, France has much stricter employment legislation but 20% higher productivity. We need to look more closely at the sort of legislation that we have.
Before the pandemic, millions of people were missing from the labour market, particularly the over-50s. Some 8.9 million are now economically inactive, which is more than half a million more than pre-pandemic levels. Of those, 3.5 million are 50 to 64-year-olds, which is more than 300,000 more than before the pandemic. It is a real shame that we have that huge untapped potential, as many of those people—1.7 million economically inactive people—want a job.
We have heard from many Opposition Members about the challenges that, sadly, women in particular face as a result of not having childcare. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, has outlined what we would do in power to introduce a much more modern approach to childcare. Without that system, we will not be able to bring more women into the workplace. We need parental leave; we need to introduce support from early years to the end of primary school; and we need to see the introduction of breakfast clubs. Many of the wider carer responsibilities of family members also, all too often, fall to women. They need to be brought back into the workplace.
On health, we have heard about the stress, anxiety and depression that many people face. They also need to be helped back into work. We also have issues with the disincentives for people who have left the labour market to get back into work. Medical professionals, teachers and many others across society felt devalued and disincentivised to work, so they left their workplace and took early retirement. We need to bring those people back into the workplace.
One reason for those issues is the Government’s dismal record on education, retraining and lifelong learning. We had the Second Reading of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill yesterday, which will finally seek to implement lifelong learning, but that should be seen in the context of a decade of failure in that area.
We have lost so much of adult learning since 2010. Only one in three adults report any participation in learning, which is the lowest level in 22 years. Indeed, Government spending on adult education—retraining and so on—has fallen by 47% over the past 10 years, and the IFS reports that apprenticeships will be 25% lower in 2024-25 than in the corresponding period in 2020-11.
Many people feel locked out of the system, which has an impact on not just individual families, but society. Such inactivity is costing our wider economy so dearly. The Learning and Work Institute says that increasing employment to the highest level in the G7 would boost the economy by £23 billion, improve the public finances by £8 billion, and raise household finances by an average of £830 per year. That is why, as part of Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, we are intent on getting Britain back to work. We have plans to fix the Access to Work scheme through improved targets for assessment waiting times and providing more indicative awards for those looking for work.
I will briefly illustrate my speech with an example of one individual who has to apply for Access to Work funding every year. If you met him, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would realise that that is quite ridiculous. The people of Warwick and Leamington have the potential, and many have the skills. They are people who want to work, but they need a Labour Government, and they want a general election now.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
I have been absolutely clear. The evidence suggests that work is the best route out of poverty and that is why, through our £30 billion plan for jobs, we plan to make that happen. We increased the national living wage and have taken millions of people out of income tax all together. We continue to take action on the cost of living and the Secretary of State is looking at further measures we can take in that regard, such as, for example, our childcare offer. As I said, our plan for jobs will be game-changing and I hope the hon. Gentleman will get behind it. I will of course be very happy to meet him and businesses in Slough to see how we can make it happen.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Youth unemployment is down compared with 2010, currently standing at 575,000 young people, and we have the second-highest youth employment rate in the G7, second only to Canada. We are conscious of the scarring effects of long-term unemployment, which is why we developed kickstart as the flagship of our plan for jobs. Since its launch in September, over 200,000 jobs have been approved and over 20,000 young people have started their jobs. As our recovery continues, we expect to see many more starts in the next few weeks and months ahead.
Matt Western [V]
I am afraid it is more damp squib than kickstart. An IT support and services company in my constituency started the much vaunted kickstart process on 15 September last year, with the expectation that it could recruit after 30 days. Eight months on, it still does not have anyone. Its conclusion: the scheme is pretty much a waste of everyone’s time and resources. Put simply, does this explain the fact that for every 25 young people who have lost their jobs over the past 12 months, kickstart has helped just one back into work?
Dr Coffey
It is fair to say that 20,000 people now have a salary coming in every week that they did not have before. I am sure that the employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—will be happy to look into the specific circumstances of the role to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Young people are not compelled to apply for kickstart if they are already applying for other jobs as well as part of their conditionality, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will look further into the matter if the hon. Gentleman provides the details.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I know the hon. Lady is committed to opportunities for young people, as am I, and our plan for jobs has multiple interventions: the £2 billion kickstart scheme, job finding support, JETS—job entry targeted support—the 13,500 new work coaches, our £150 million boost to the flexible support fund, and restart coming this summer. I assure her that our focus on youth continues. In her constituency, 17 employers are engaging with kickstart for young people, with 77 vacancies available and 11 starts. Of course, 140,000 opportunities are coming through the system now and I continue to have this focus on youth employment, as she rightly points out that we should, and I will continue to work across Government to highlight that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We introduced legislation on 16 November so that monthly earnings can be reallocated to another assessment period, meaning that claimants affected by this issue will therefore have one salary payment taken into account in each assessment period. We have also produced guidance to help to ensure that claimants, staff and representatives are aware of different earning patterns and the impact on universal credit payment cycles.
Matt Western
People such as Mr B in my constituency and across the country have been forced to survive with little to no support, all because of an error through the Minister’s Department. Worse still, the pain has been prolonged by pursuing this through the courts. Will the Minister do the right thing and properly recompense those affected, such as Mr B, who suffered as a result of utilities being cut off and consequent costs as a result? And will the Minister meet me to discuss that specific case?
Will Quince
Of course, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that individual case, and I am very sorry to hear of those circumstances. However, the Court of Appeal judgment was very specific and was limited to double earnings for those paid calendar-monthly caused by a non-banking day salary shift. We have chosen to go further and include all the monthly-paid who are affected by double earnings, but the judgment did not require the Department to apply the new arrangements retrospectively.
Terminally Ill People: Access to Benefits
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I have brought this debate to the House tonight to urge the Government to announce the results of their review of how the benefits system treats the terminally ill. The review was announced over 19 months ago now, on 11 July 2019, in response to campaigning by charities Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and others. I pay tribute to those charities for all their work on this issue and their support for me in bringing forward my ten-minute rule Bill, the Welfare (Terminal Illness) Bill, last summer. I also thank individual campaigners like Mark Hughes, Dave Setters and so many others who have continued to make a compelling case for change. The same is true of my friend Madeleine Moon, the former MP for Bridgend, who did so much good work on this issue during her time as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease. She had first-hand experience of the mental and emotional toil that comes with supporting a loved one with terminal illness. The Bill she brought to the House on this issue in 2018 is the inspiration for the Bill that I brought forward last summer. I have no doubt that the pressure exerted by these and other extraordinary individuals and organisations was instrumental in pushing the Government into announcing the review in July 2019.
So on their behalf, I again call on the Government today to take urgent action on two elements of the special rules for terminal illness guidelines that are not fit for purpose: the six-month rule, which means that someone is obliged to provide medical proof that they have six months or less to live so that they can access benefits quickly, more sensitively and at a higher rate; and the three-year award, which forces terminally ill people to reapply for benefits in the minority of cases where they are lucky enough to live longer than three years after the benefit is awarded. The special rules for terminal illness process is intended to enable people who are terminally ill to access benefits such as the personal independence payment or universal credit rapidly at the highest level of payments without going through the standard application process. Claiming under the special rules requires the person’s doctor, consultant or specialist nurse to submit a DS1500 form stating that the person is reasonably likely to die within six months. That forces people who have unpredictable terminal illnesses such as motor neurone disease or those expected to live longer than six months to apply via the standard claims process, which involves filling in long forms, attending assessments, delays in payment, lower rates, and even meeting work coaches—all while waiting months for payments. Clearly, that is highly inappropriate for people who have been given the devastating news that their condition is terminal.
The six-month rule is flawed and urgently needs to change. The all-party group on terminal illness, chaired by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), found in its 2019 report that it was outdated and arbitrary with no basis in clinical reality. This six-month hard deadline is too much to ask of carers and claimants. It creates a completely understandable resistance to applying, prompting the added pain of writing down the grim reality of daily life and the inevitable future darkness. It gives no hope, no joy in life in a world where hope and joy are often all that can keep you going. In the case of unpredictable illnesses like MND, heart and lung failure and many neurological conditions, it is all but impossible for clinicians to make an accurate prediction of life expectancy. It is little wonder that nearly a third of clinicians told the all-party group that they have never signed a DS1500 form for a patient with a non-cancer condition. That means that patients like Simon, who was diagnosed with MND in December 2020, are not able to access the special rules. His wife Nichola told the MND Association:
“The doctor said that the DS1500 was designed for cancer patients…He looked at Simon and said ‘you won’t be dead in six months’. We had to complete the whole form and apply under the standard rules. It’s so long winded, so time consuming because you just don’t think about how long you spend on helping him get dressed etc. People need that support…often it feels like you’re banging your head against the wall.”
This unpredictability is why the three-year award also needs to change. Half of all people with motor neurone disease, for example, die within two years of being diagnosed, while only around 10% live for more than five years, but there is no reliable way for doctors to determine who that 10% will be, and, as with many progressive illnesses, their condition has no prospect of improvement and will only deteriorate further as time goes on. Emma Saysell, from the wonderful St David’s Hospice in Newport, tells me it is seeing more and more cases of cancer patients having to reapply for benefits with the DS1500 after three years. That comes in part due to improvements that have been made in palliative treatment, but while patients are living longer, they are still living with a terminal illness.
One particular example St David’s presented to me was of a lady in her mid-40s diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. The lady’s prognosis at diagnosis was very poor, and she had two teenage children. It was quite right to submit the DS1500 at diagnosis. Her disease is still progressing, but due to the palliative chemotherapy she has received, the process has been slowed, and she has now lived longer than three years. She has recently had to reapply for all her benefits due to the three-year rule, which has been hugely stressful for her and her family.
It is a clear anomaly that terminally ill people are awarded benefits for only three years. Employment and support allowance claimants with progressive conditions are entitled to the severe conditions exemption, meaning that they do not have to repeat work capability assessments, while higher-rate PIP claimants can qualify for an ongoing award, with a light-touch review after the 10-year point. It is cruel and absurd that people living with a lifelong condition are entitled to a 10-year or lifetime award, while those with terminal illnesses have been told they must reapply for benefits or risk losing them after just three years. Those who do happen to live longer than three years tell me they feel they are being punished by the system for living too long.
It is now seven months to the day since I presented my ten-minute rule Bill, and more than 19 months since the then Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, announced a review of how the benefits system treats terminally ill people. In all that time, we have had no official word from the Government on when they intend to bring forward these vital and long-awaited changes to the benefit system.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for the campaigning work she has been doing on this issue for an extended period, following the work that Madeleine Moon was doing. Scotland introduced its changes to SRTI back in 2018. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is seems very late for the Government here not to have done anything about it? This is all about funding people who desperately need money in the last few months of their lives.
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and he reads my mind—I am just about to come to that section of my speech. This is an issue across the whole UK, and the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland appear to be treating it as a higher priority than the UK Government do. The Scottish Government passed a law to change the six-month rule for devolved benefits back in 2018, and that will be coming into force later this year. The Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously backed a motion to scrap it in October, and the Executive are proactively looking to fix this issue and deliver reform quickly. Why, then, is Westminster dragging its heels?
When I introduced my Bill last July, the Minister for Disabled People, Welfare and Work indicated that change would be coming shortly. He confirmed in the House on 19 October last year that the Government would be changing the six-month rule following their review. However, all this time later, we are still waiting to hear exactly what it would be changed to and when that change will be introduced. If Ministers have made up their minds that change is needed, why is there any need for further delay? Why the long silence?
Every day the Government postpone an announcement on the outcome of their review, more people are diagnosed with a terminal illness and risk being unable to get fast-track support from the benefits system if they cannot prove they have less than six months to live. These people are facing exactly the kind of inappropriate medical and work capability assessment that the special rules for terminal illness are supposed to exempt them from before they can access the support they need. They also face huge delays in getting payments. The average wait for a first personal independence payment is now 16 weeks, at a time when someone’s illness may mean that they cannot work and have no other money coming in. These are people like Alan, who has terminal pulmonary fibrosis, and who told Marie Curie:
“When I was diagnosed, I was told I would have five years’ life expectancy, as an average. Day to day, it affects everything I do. I can’t get dressed by myself. I can’t go to the shop by myself. I get very breathless doing anything. When I first applied for PIP, they were very dismissive. One of the things they did was, because I walked from a lift to a room, which was about 10 steps—on that basis they judged I could walk 200 yards. Because I was refused PIP, I couldn’t get hold of things like a parking card or a discount for train travel. So, I was in receipt of no benefits at all, although I do have a terminal illness, which gets worse year after year, month to month.”
For some, that delay will mean they die without receiving any support at all. Between April 2018 and October 2019, 2,140 people who applied for PIP—only one of the benefits affected by this rule—had their claim turned down under the normal rules only to die within six months of making their claim. Many of them will have been terminally ill people unable to claim via the special rules because they could not prove they had six months to live.
Even when the DWP does accept a claim, that often comes too late. According to the DWP’s own figures, an average of 10 people die every day while waiting for a decision on their PIP claim. End-of-life charity Marie Curie estimates that that means more than 5,900 people have died waiting for a decision since the DWP announced its review. That is nearly 6,000 families put through needless distress and anguish, and more will face it every day because of a rule that the Government have already admitted needs to change.
That is families like Michelle’s. Her mum, who died aged 62 in 2018, was initially awarded zero points for PIP and told she was capable of working. She was hooked to a feeding tube 16 hours a day, seven days a week and weighed 32 kilograms when she died. She had several illnesses including Crohn’s, osteoporosis and terminal lung cancer, yet she was awarded nothing. Michelle took her mum’s case to a tribunal, but by the time the decision came back that her mother should be awarded maximum points for PIP, she had died. Michelle says:
“This should have been money that my mum had to make her final days better. It should never have gone as far as a tribunal.”
Dying people deserve to be treated with dignity by the benefits system. Nobody given the devastating news that their illness is terminal knows how long they have left—not their loved ones, not their doctor and not a DWP benefits assessor. However much time they have left should be spent living as well as they can for as long as they can, making memories with loved ones. It should not be spent worrying about money, filling in endless forms, being dragged to assessments and fighting for the support they need. As Madeleine Moon said back in 2018,
“The unknown time you have must not be spent worrying about accessing benefits or keeping a roof over your head; it must be spent in love, laughter, and taking the painful journey together with dignity and compassion.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 456.]
People living with terminal illness and their loved ones have been campaigning tirelessly for change for more than two years. Many of them will not have lived to see the change they have fought for: an end to the six-month and three-year rules and a change to the system to allow anyone who has received the devastating news from a clinician that they are terminally ill to get fast-tracked access to benefits via the special rules. The clinician’s judgment should be evidence enough.
We all understand that since the Government announced their review there have been unforeseen circumstances with covid-19, but people do not have time to wait further. For the past 19 months, they have been waiting in a frustrating limbo, told that change is coming but with no announcement in sight from Ministers. They, and the charities campaigning on their behalf, are understandably impatient with 19 months of warm words from the Government and promises that change is always coming soon. For many, soon is already too late and, with each day that passes, soon will be too late for many more.
I urge Ministers to do better than soon. Will the Minister give us a date today for when the outcome of the DWP review will be published, give the campaigners who have called for change some clarity and give us a timeline setting out when the Government will make the changes to the law, which they have already accepted are needed, without further delay?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
Our £170 million covid winter grant scheme will enable local authorities to support vulnerable households this winter with food and key utilities. As the Secretary of State has made clear, there are conditions, but I would certainly encourage local authorities to work with partners on the ground, making sure that this support reaches people across our communities.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the national average increase in unemployment is 24%, but for over-50s, it has risen by a third. Yet vacancies have fallen by 278,000 since the pre-pandemic period. Does the Minister agree that there are approximately a quarter of a million people over 50 who will never find work again?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—currently 111,000 children are owed £187 million by parents who refuse to pay up—to get on and do the right thing by them. We should not end up having to rely on the state to arbitrate between two parents.[Official Report, 16 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 2MC.]
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The £500 self-isolation payment administered by local councils was devised to achieve compliance with public health guidance. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is leading on the matter. I am conscious that there may be local arrangements that need to be addressed. Often, the best way to tackle those is through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has local funds that have been topped up by this Government to help with local welfare issues.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]
Matt Western ExcerptsWednesday 7th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Jun 2020)
Andrea Leadsom
Exactly, Mr Speaker—at least. I was referring to people who are starting to have to think seriously about these issues.
My fourth and final point is about investing in decarbonisation. It was fantastic yesterday to hear the Prime Minister talking about our ambition to be world-leading in clean growth. That was, in fact, the No. 1 priority that I set out for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy when the Prime Minister first took office last year. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister are determined to help our pensions system contribute to the excellent action on decarbonisation that the Government are already taking. I totally agree with them that this multibillion-pound sector can be a real force for good, and investing in the green economy can play a part in helping us to level up across the UK.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I just want to pick up on those points. The right hon. Lady is making some powerful arguments, and I commend her for that. She will probably have picked up, as I did the other day, that Exxon Mobil has been surpassed in terms of the value of its business by a Florida-based renewables company. When we consider that that was the origin of the Rockefeller Foundation wealth, it just goes to show that had we invested in some of those organisations earlier and provided encouragement, through tax or other fiscal incentives, for pensions to get into that sector, we would have done extremely well.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We should highlight the excellent work of some of the traditional high-carbon emitting companies of the past, which are really transforming themselves to become the renewables companies of the future. Some of the announcements made by BP, for example, have been incredibly welcome, especially those that show its determination to reduce its carbon footprint and to become one of the best and greenest companies of the future.
So I agree that by encouraging pension funds to invest in greener industries, we can help to improve our green economy and thereby level up across the UK and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister what conversations they have had with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the Government’s proposed reforms to corporate governance and audit? There is no doubt that audit reform could provide a much greater focus on what businesses are actually doing to improve their carbon footprint, and corporate governance changes could improve the incentives on company directors to prioritise carbon reduction and protecting the environment. With improved transparency and information about company performance, it will be considerably easier for pension fund managers to make investment decisions that will build security for us all in older age as well as protecting our planet, which is a top priority for so many people right across our economy.
Once again, I welcome this very important Bill, which I think is going to be quite transformative. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend will take my comments and suggestions in the light in which they are given, which is to try to improve and build on the excellent work that they have already done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Western Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising issues in Portsmouth, where we are actively trying to help people to get back into work and to have the hope the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are currently working with a pop-up business school in his constituency and, coming up, he may be interested to know that in his local jobcentre there is a new mentoring circle with Maritime UK Solent, which up to 20 young people will get a chance to be part of, seeing the different employer pathways that are available in Portsmouth. He will be interested to know that our work coach recruitment to help people back into work is open, and ends on Wednesday, for people locally to apply.
Matt Western
As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) just said, we face a tsunami of unemployment over the coming six to eight months, which I think the Minister would accept. Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning that covid will not end at the end of October, so why should the furlough scheme? Business representatives have said that the furlough scheme in other countries, such as Germany and France, is offering a competitive advantage to those economies that we do not. Will the Minister please speak to the Chancellor and look for an extension of the furlough scheme, particularly on some sort of sectoral deal?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the need for local interventions in his constituency. I must say that his local jobcentre is doing fantastic work, particularly working with young people, and already has new dedicated work coaches to help people as they look to get back into work. We have a new virtual jobs board as well, and we are also working on a local place-based plan to help fill roles in sectors which we already could not fill coming into this, particularly in care homes. There are also roles with the DWP, which start next week, for people to apply for. But I do not think that keeping people in suspended animation and not giving them hope for the future is the way forward.
Statutory Sick Pay and Protection for Workers
Matt Western Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend has made a very important point, highlighting the vulnerability of people in insecure work who do not have enough support and also the levels of statutory sick pay, which are not sufficient to cover people during the crisis.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. May I echo the point that she made about Denmark? I understand that both the French and the Italian Governments are seeking to introduce exactly the same system to support workers who would otherwise be laid off. The money is being paid directly to companies to ensure that they can retain those employees and the business can be kept alive as well.
Margaret Greenwood
That too is a very important point. The Labour party is working with the TUC and others on a package of measures, and looking at the Danish model in particular.
We want people to be reassured that they will not lose their jobs and their income, so they can go on spending. That would prevent a sharp fall in demand, and would also ease business confidence, as firms would see the Government take on part of their wage bill. It is an approach that involves employers, trade unions and the Government working together to preserve jobs and protect people from poverty. We are calling on the Government to explore these options, and we are prepared to work in partnership to make that happen.
There is a real danger that people who have already been pushed to the margins of our society will be worst affected by this crisis, and those who are struggling on low incomes, are disabled or are unable to work will be affected particularly badly. As I have said, we are working with the TUC and others on a range of measures to extend and raise statutory sick pay, abolish the five-week wait and sanctions, and provide income and wage support along the lines of the Danish model. We also wish to join in discussions with the Prime Minister about emergency universal basic income. We need leadership from the Government to ensure that all are protected if they fall ill, are forced to self-isolate, see their jobs at risk, or face unemployment. More than ever, we need leadership and policies that reflect the responsibility we all have for one another.