Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]

Oliver Heald Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend puts it much better than I can, and I thank him warmly for his engagement. The consultation was extensive and almost 1,000 clinicians were able to share their views. I would also like to reassure the House that we have a robust system in place to keep checking in to make sure that the system works in the best way it possibly can.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend would like to say a further word about the attitude of the DWP staff. I served on the Work and Pensions Committee for many years, as did the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). I think the staff want to get the money out of the door, and if there is clarity in the rules that helps. I welcome the Bill, but I wanted to make that point about the staff, who are, I think, good-hearted and who want to do the job well.

[Victoria Prentis]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. In my interactions with DWP staff as a constituency MP, I have been blown away by their determination to help those we serve. I am sure that that accords with his experience.

In conclusion, the Bill will ensure that thousands more people who are at the end of their lives can get faster access to three disability benefits. It will change eligibility so that those expected to live for 12 months or less will be able to access support at an earlier stage. The changes will ensure a consistent end-of-life definition across health and welfare services and will introduce—this is very important, as clinicians begged for it—easily understood criteria that should lead to really effective implementation and wide take-up. The Government are committed to improving the benefit system so that people nearing the end of their lives will have a system that works, one that gives those who are affected the support they need when they need it and one that clinicians, charities and families can engage in with confidence.

I put on record my thanks to the individuals, charities, clinical groups and others who have supported the Department since the evaluation of how the benefits system supports people was launched in 2019, and I recognise the valuable work that has been done. The Department is absolutely committed to continuing to engage with them as the changes in this Bill are rolled out and implemented. This is only a small Bill, but it is one that will provide thousands more people with the valuable support they and their families need at what is a very difficult time, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).

Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Sir David Evennett.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I would caution the hon. Gentleman about being so negative about an assessment that, yes, works for the vast majority of people. Only a certain number of the appeals get through and only 5% of the total number of assessments are overturned. I do not want people generally who are listening to and watching this exchange to think that the assessments are something to be fearful of. The people who conduct these assessments are sympathetic, thoughtful people who try to give the right answers. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. I urge the hon. Gentleman to let me know if he has a particular case or cases, because I or the relevant Minister will always talk to him and make sure that the outcome is settled.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to celebrate the achievements of people with learning disabilities and autism in employment and outside of employment.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

It is really important to recognise and celebrate the achievements and contributions, in all aspects of life, of people with learning disabilities and autism. Disability Confident highlights achievements of disabled people, including those with learning disabilities. Most recently, the high-profile November and December campaign reached more than 16 million people on Twitter alone. We are investing in new support and employment opportunities too, and we also work with charities such as Autism Exchange and the Speaking Out Forum.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My constituent, Sam Prowse, has been chosen as a winner on the inaugural Learning Disability and Autism Leaders’ List announced recently. He was chosen for his work with Hertfordshire County Council as an adviser supporting the library service on autism and on making information easy to read. Does the Minister agree that this list is a good way of celebrating the achievements of people such as Sam who give a great deal to the local community?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter. I very much support the inaugural Learning Disability and Autism Leaders’ List. I thank Sam for his contribution to his community and congratulate him on his achievement. There are so many unsung heroes in all our communities and it is always a pleasure to have an opportunity such as this. The Prime Minister’s award, Points of Light, provides another excellent way of highlighting the contribution of disabled people to our society.

Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Perhaps the hon. Lady was not listening. I have already set out the extra funding we have brought forward. I wish she would support this. Of course, as we go through this process we learn and make changes as appropriate, but the reality is that we now have a much simpler system, under which people are able to get the one-to-one support they were not able to get before. She should welcome that.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was necessary in the roll-out of universal credit to learn the lessons of the failed introduction of tax credits, which left many people on low incomes right across the country in a big-bang situation where they were faced with large debts? Does he agree that, contrary to that approach, this Government have taken time and tested the system as they have gone? They continue to do that with the test involving 10,000 people, which I strongly support. I suggest they continue that approach.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support. We have always said there will be a test phase, and that is what we will have. He is absolutely right to highlight that the introduction of tax credits was not a success, whatever Opposition Members may say. It is absolutely right that we listen and learn, and that is precisely what we will do as we go through the test phase.

Scotland Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I agree, and we should be removing as much ambiguity as possible from the Bill. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to introduce a new benefit or a top-up benefit in one of these categories, the definition should be as wide as possible to enable it to do so. We do not want to end up with a dispute between two Governments or between recipients and the deliverer of the benefits or services about the definition in the Act. It would be good to get some clarity about what is meant by clauses 19 to 23.

As an example, I will consider disability benefit. As Inclusion Scotland has argued, the definition of disability benefits in clause 19 might “restrict the autonomy” of the Scottish Parliament in constructing a new disability benefits

“system based on empowering disabled people to lead active and productive lives and promoting the human rights of disabled people and independent living.”

We have therefore tabled amendment 128, which offers an alternative, broader and more flexible definition of disability benefit that would, among other things, allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce a benefit to assist people with low-level disabilities or those for whom the effect of their disability is largely financial.

Likewise, the definition of what constitutes a “relevant carer” is also, we believe, too prescriptive. As Enable Scotland observes, it

“prescribes to whom carers benefits would be payable, stipulating that the recipient would be over 16, not in full time education and not gainfully employed; and requiring that the cared-for person is in receipt of disability benefit.”

The Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s report of May 2015 on the Smith commission proposals and the UK Government’s response concluded:

“The Committee is concerned that the current definition of carer in the draft clauses appears overly restrictive and could limit the policy discretion of future Scottish administrations in this area. The Committee recommends that the clause should be re-drafted to ensure that the future Scottish administrations are able to define what constitutes a carer.”

I agree with both Enable Scotland and the Scottish Parliament Committee that the clauses as drafted unnecessarily limit the scope of the Scottish Parliament’s powers and might limit their ability in future to create new benefits. We have therefore tabled amendment 48, which seeks to remove the definition from the Bill to allow the Scottish Parliament to arrive at its own definition. I am pleased that the SNP has supported the amendment and want to reciprocate by supporting amendment 115, which provides for the provision of non-financial assistance as regards benefits for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, and amendment 121, which inserts the additional qualifying criteria for provision of discretionary payments and assistance for being part of a family facing exceptional financial pressure.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the overall approach being taken in the UK now is of concentrating on tackling poverty by giving people skills, pushing the work obligation and removing barriers to employment, and that it is important that the welfare system should dovetail with that? There are of course provisions in this Bill to that effect. Does he agree that it would be wrong if Scotland were to take a different approach and go back to a dependency culture?

[Ian Murray]

It is not the purpose of our amendments to create some kind of dependency culture. Indeed, in my last sentence as the hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking to intervene I said that we accept the SNP’s amendment 121 that addresses payments and discretionary payments for families facing exceptional pressure, and the amendments on carers and disabled qualifications widen the definitions, so it becomes not just about supporting people with a financial need, but about work assistance and getting people back into work.

The issues around the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and Access to Work schemes are the third part of this Bill. We will come on to them later and examine some of the points, because the Government have tended to forget that this process is not just about forcing people off welfare; it is also about giving them the opportunity to get back into work and supporting them through that process. We want to support more people in that way, particularly disabled people and those who find it particularly difficult to access the labour market, and we should make sure the legislation is flexible enough to do that.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

One of the key aims of the UK Government is to ensure work always pays better than being on benefits. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a pity if any of these reforms altered that balance for Scotland?

[Ian Murray]

I do agree, but I find it a little ironic that the hon. and learned Gentleman says from the Conservative Government Benches that everything should be designed to encourage people into work, when in fact the whole design of the tax credit system was to encourage people into work and the first aim of the Conservative Government seems to be to cut tax credits which would make it less attractive for people to be in work. There is a fine balance to be struck between supporting people into the workplace and in the workplace and making sure work always pays. I think all Members would agree with that principle, but cutting tax credits is not the way to make sure work pays, because it will force people into choosing whether they are better-off out of work or in work. We must strive for much higher pay in order to reduce the welfare bill in tax credits, rather than cutting tax credits; that would be coming at it from the wrong angle.

I was talking about amendments 121 and 115. These are straightforward and common-sense amendments that grant greater autonomy to the Scottish Parliament in the way it provides support to the vulnerable and those at risk in Scotland. We have tabled a number of other amendments to this section of the Bill, including amendment 112 to clause 19 which removes the phrase “short-term” in regard to disability benefits, and amendment 111, which removes the reference to “occasional” financial assistance in clause 23.

Meanwhile, our amendments 12 and 13 to clauses 21 and clause 22 respectively would allow the provision of discretionary financial assistance in a reserved benefit. I do not believe any of these amendments are particularly controversial. Indeed they have garnered a broad cross-section of support from charities, including Enable Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, Learning Disability Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Allen]

I will, although I must say, through the Chair, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants a debate on the broader concept of welfare, I will try to answer his questions but I may well be called to order.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his amendment 132, like the SNP’s amendment 117, undermines the sanctions regime, which is there to ensure that taxpayers’ money paying for good advice to jobseekers is properly spent and that people turn up for their appointments? The sanctions regime is there for a purpose but he is undermining it—why?

[Mr Allen]

The hon. and learned Gentleman may be holding his amendment paper upside down, because it does not say that at all. I will now go on to explain this to him—I always help people, whether they have literacy problems or they are members of the Conservative party, to understand what my amendments mean. I think I know what my amendment means. Amendment 132 states that, if someone suffers financial hardship from having a benefit reduced or suspended, they can receive the discretionary housing payment again—that is in exception 6 in clause 22, and I say that just for the hon. and learned Gentleman. This potentially excludes people who have been sanctioned or had their benefits suspended due to perceived non-compliance with conditions attached to a reserved benefit and to accessing discretionary housing payments.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. The hon. Gentleman described me as illiterate, but he is in fact describing an undermining of the sanctions regime, which is what I put to him. Is that in order?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

That is a point of debate, and we are slightly veering away from the amendment that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has tabled. I think we can move on now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I shall speak to amendments 115, 116, 117 and 131, tabled in my names and the names of my colleagues, and in support of amendments that have been jointly tabled by Labour and SNP Members, including amendment 48 and new clause 31. All the amendments would strengthen the provisions in relation to the benefits system and bring it more closely in line with the Smith commission recommendations. We should remember that those recommendations were agreed by all five main political parties in Scotland and reflect the democratic demand of our people for the power to make decisions in Scotland for Scotland.

The amendments would improve our social security system by ensuring that it is tailored to our needs and circumstances and fits our policy objectives. That in turn will enhance governance and strengthen democratic accountability in Scotland and make a real difference to the lives our citizens.

It is worth restating that paragraph 49 of the Smith agreement recommended that powers should be devolved on benefits for carers, disabled people and those who are sick—attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payments, industrial injuries disablement allowance and severe disablement allowance. The agreement also recommended devolution of the benefits that currently comprise the regulated social fund—cold weather payments, funeral payments, Sure Start maternity grants and winter fuel payments, as well as discretionary housing payments. It proposed that new arrangements for the Motability scheme in Scotland for DLA and PIP claimants should be agreed.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I welcome what the hon. Lady is saying. Looking at amendment 117, is the SNP really turning its face against conditionality and the focus on work in the benefits system in favour of a system in which, even if someone does not turn up to see the adviser and is sanctioned, they still get the benefit? How can that be right?

[Dr Whiteford]

On the very last day of the last Parliament, if the hon. Gentleman remembers, the Work and Pensions Committee—with a majority of coalition Members—called for a root-and-branch review of the sanctions regime. The reason why it did that should be self-evident to every Member of the House. We have seen repeatedly how the most vulnerable people in our communities fall foul of that sanctions regime. People with mental health problems and single parents are being disproportionately sanctioned. Members of Parliament can turn up five minutes late to meetings all over this place and do not lose their pay, so why should the most vulnerable and the disabled be subject to sanctions? I agree with the Work and Pensions Committee, which twice in the last Parliament called for a root-and-branch review. We could do so much better in Scotland.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way again because I want to make some progress.

Paragraph 51 of the Smith agreement was quite explicit that the Scottish Parliament should have

“complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the benefits at paragraph 49 or any new benefits or services which might replace them. For these benefits, it would be for the Scottish Parliament whether to agree a delivery partnership with DWP or to set up separate Scottish arrangements.”

I come back to the point about amendment 117. It should be for the Scottish Government to tailor policies that suit our purposes and take cognisance of the circumstances in which we live and work.

Smith was also clear that there should be powers to create new benefits and to top up benefits in reserved areas, by making, as it says in paragraph 54,

“discretionary payments in any area of welfare without the need to obtain prior permission from DWP”.

The agreement says explicitly:

“Any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Parliament must provide additional income for a recipient and not result in an automatic offsetting reduction in their entitlement to other benefits or post-tax earnings if in employment.”

When we compare these sections of the agreement with the Bill, we see all too clearly that it fails to live up to what was proposed. A number of the amendments in this group seek to rectify some of those shortcomings, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that seriously and accept some of the practical measures that would substantially improve and strengthen this Bill.

As it is currently worded, the Bill places restrictions on the ability of present or future Scottish Parliaments to provide appropriate support for sick and disabled claimants and those who provide them with unpaid care at home. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that the definition of disability benefit in the Bill places limits on the types of support that the Scottish Government could introduce, and therefore we support the wider scope that amendment 128 would give to shape policy in Scotland—for example, by enabling those with long-term and temporary conditions to receive support. That is a pragmatic but potentially far-reaching improvement.

In a similar vein, amendment 48 would remove the definition of who can be considered a carer. It is important that the restrictions on carer’s allowance eligibility definitions be removed from the Bill. If the Scottish Government could vary the eligibility conditions, or indeed the amount of a new carer’s benefit in Scotland, we could do more for the 62,000 carers in Scotland currently in receipt of carer’s allowance and potentially, depending on the will of Parliament, look at long-standing issues such as how many hours a person can study while being a carer, or how much of someone’s earnings is counted in determining their eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The point I was trying to make is that when carers’ own health is compromised, that puts an enormous strain on our local authorities and our NHS. They have to make more crisis interventions, which are costly in human and in financial terms.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can and we must do better for sick people, disabled people and their carers, and that with more effective devolution we can align policy more closely with areas such as health and social care that are already devolved and that are most relevant for carers. What this amendment, like others, really comes down to is who can be trusted to safeguard carers’ interests: a Tory Government with one lonely Scottish Tory MP, or the Scottish Parliament which is democratically representative, accessible and accountable to the people it serves. A clear majority of the people of Scotland have indicated their support for substantial and meaningful delivery of those powers as they were set out in the Smith agreement, as have key stakeholder groups.

I know that the Secretary of State takes a personal interest in support for carers, and I urge him to listen and to accept these amendments that will move us a small step closer to what was promised, and will make a big difference to people’s lives.

Amendments 116 and 117 relate to the proposed powers over discretionary housing payments, other discretionary payments and the sanctions regime. Our clear view is that the proposed powers over discretionary housing payments in clause 22 fail to deliver the Smith commission recommendation for autonomy because they are subject to various restrictions. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s interim report on the draft Scotland Bill clauses,

“the exclusion of the ability to make payments where the need arises from the impact of UK Government policies on conditionality and sanctions constrains the effectiveness of these powers in providing necessary support to key groups”.

Our amendments would remove some of these constraints, including those relating to sanctions, which we have already discussed, and bring the Bill into line with the Smith recommendations in relation to when discretionary housing payments and other discretionary payments and assistance can be made.

I very much welcome the support of Labour Members for amendment 115, which enables the provision of assistance in forms other than cash, for benefits related to maternity, funeral and heating expenses. That might seem quite a small thing, but I am sure that many Members will share my experience of people presenting themselves in the constituency office at half-past four on a Friday afternoon facing a weekend with no money and no electricity. Often they have spent the day battling bureaucracy and have come to the MP as a last-ditch attempt to get assistance when all else has failed. Often we can secure emergency food parcels through local church food banks, or access emergency power cards.

This amendment would enable non-cash provision such as power cards or, in the case of funeral payments when people’s bank accounts can be frozen in the event of a sudden death, emergency support for people who are in a very difficult situation. Thanks to innovative technology there are now clever ways to deliver emergency support through mobile phones, which is particularly useful in rural areas such as mine, where there are ever fewer banks and post offices in villages, and those that remain keep ever more limited hours. If people can receive support on a mobile phone that can then be used in their local shop, it provides a lifeline to those most vulnerable and in need of emergency support.

Amendment 131 would amend clause 23 and extend the power of the Scottish Government to provide support in exceptional circumstances. This issue has been raised by the Child Poverty Action Group, which points out that exception 8 is narrowly drafted and does not include families under exceptional pressure among the categories of those potentially eligible for

“occasional financial or other assistance”.

This group is currently eligible for community care grants under the interim Scottish welfare fund and was also eligible for the predecessor social fund administered by the DWP. Failure to reference this group in the Bill and put beyond doubt the protection of families under exceptional pressure as a priority group in their own right could put the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable families at risk. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will look sympathetically at this amendment and accept it. I look forward to the Government’s response.

A letter in The Herald today signed by 12 leading third sector organisations in Scotland points to the concern among charities and civil Scotland about just how damaging the next round of welfare cuts will be. They are right to say that those least able to cope are likely to be hit the hardest. Today MPs have an opportunity to strengthen the Bill so that it lives up to the recommendations of the Smith commission. This would enable us to shape a fairer future for Scotland’s social security system and bring more of those welfare decisions and the levers to grow our economy into the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

This Tory Government have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted with social security. They seem utterly determined to press ahead with eye-watering further cuts of £12 billion. Scotland’s charities are making it clear today that the axe should not be falling on the least well-off in our society but should be shared more equitably.

At the general election the SNP received an unprecedented mandate to speak up for Scotland, and today I am asking Westminster to listen, to live up to the spirit and intent of the Smith commission with regard to welfare, and to deliver the powers we need to shape a social security system that supports and empowers people when hard times hit, rather than punishing them. These amendments take a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Government will accept them.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I welcome the huge transfer of welfare and tax powers set out in the Bill, but I want to make one point about conditionality. Over the past 15 years or so one of the insights that has struck in the field of work and pensions and welfare is the idea that tackling poverty is not just about benefits; it is also about helping people into work, education and skills and removing barriers to work. Conditionality is part of that process, and it was introduced by Labour. It says to the taxpayer and benefit recipients, “Look, if we pay huge amounts of money to train a cadre of people in the jobcentres, if we hire expert companies to advise jobseekers and if we involve the disability groups in the process, as taxpayers we are making a big investment in trying to help people into work and end the dependency culture.”

Therefore, is it really right for somebody who has been offered an opportunity to go to the jobcentre for an advice session or training not to attend and not to explain why? When they are sanctioned, is it really right for us to say, “Oh, that doesn’t matter, because the taxpayer can just pay the bill and there will be no consequences at all”? That would be the effect of the two amendments that would take out the guts of clauses 22 and 23 and remove conditionality.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept these two points? First, 55% of people in receipt of benefits are already working, so they do not need help into work. They are on benefits, doing the right thing and trying look after their families, but they are the people who will be hurt by the reductions that the Government are proposing. Secondly, although I accept that those in receipt of benefits have responsibilities, the Work and Pensions Committee has said on two occasions, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned, that the sanctions regime is too fierce and needs to be adjusted. Does he not accept the Select Committee’s findings?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I served on the Select Committee for many years. I accept that the sanctions regime needs to be reviewed and that it needs to work properly, but that is not the same as scrapping it. The amendments would undermine the regime so severely that it would be fatally damaged. I am not saying that there should not be a wide transfer of powers; I am simply asking Opposition Members to think about their taxpayers, about those people who are investing in services for jobseekers and all that help. Is it really right that there should be no conditionality?

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

During the election campaign I met a man in my constituency called Dave Grieve. He had found very little support at the jobcentre to help him get into employment, so he took the initiative of setting up his own Facebook page. He now has 11,000 followers. He advertises the jobs and promotes the opportunities that are not provided through the jobcentres.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The Select Committee visited Scotland on occasion—[Interruption.] No, it is a UK-wide Committee, so we visited all parts of the United Kingdom. We found some excellent services. The hon. Gentleman might have a bad example, but overall across the United Kingdom, including Scotland, there are some excellent services that taxpayers are paying for. I think that these amendments would undermine the conditionality that is important to that.

Child Poverty

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There has been a very considerable cacophony in the Chamber. I can advise the House that at least three dozen colleagues are seeking to catch my eye on this important matter. I want to try to accommodate the level of interest, but we have business questions to follow and then a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, before we embark on a significantly subscribed debate following the Anderson report, so there is a premium on brevity from both Back and Front Benchers. I hope that we will be given a tutorial in that by Sir Oliver Heald.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the best figures in his and my time in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see Labour concentrating on statistics and benefits when the central insight that the Government have had, which is working, is that this is all about work, education and tackling barriers to employment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to bring about life change to improve people’s lives in the poorest communities. I made the point that more households in social housing are in work than ever before, and that is life change. They are taking control of their lives.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I am not prepared to concede that. I am happy with the numbers that I have. I will go away and check them. I promise to write to the hon. Lady and apologise if I have got my figures wrong, but I think they are fairly robust.

Thankfully, Government Members know a little bit about employment. One or two of us have run businesses that have employed people. We also know what it is like to be made redundant. I was interested in the Secretary of State’s remarks on that. I know from my experience how unpleasant it can be and how difficult it is for families. I started a businesses when I was 26 with Government help under the enterprise allowance scheme, which is helping many thousands of businesses now. Back in 1993, £20 a week was not a lot of money, but it was enough to fill up my car with fuel, which enabled me to grow a business that was eventually acquired by a public limited company.

Let us see what we have done so far. The number of jobs is about 1.75 million higher than in 2010. Thanks to our plan, the economy is stable and there is no reason to believe that job numbers will not continue to rise. Some 80% of employment is full time. Since this Government took office, 1,000 jobs have been created every day. The youth unemployment claimant count has fallen to its lowest level since the ’70s. In the last year alone, there was a fall of 34% in young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and the claimant count has fallen every month for the past three years. The Work programme has helped almost a third of a million people into long-term employment since 2011.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very telling that the number of part-timers who would like to have full-time work has fallen by 140,000? That is a clear indication that full-time work is back.

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. There are people who enjoy working part time and feel that it suits their lifestyle. The figure that he mentioned is encouraging.

In my constituency, the number of young people claiming JSA has dropped by almost 40% in the last year alone. We have introduced a couple of schemes that are helping people into work or back into work. The Work programme is helping 1.75 million unemployed people. As of September last year, it had helped a third of a million people into lasting work. Help to Work, the scheme for long-term unemployed young people who have been in the Work programme for a couple of years, is providing community work placements. The Government have pledged to fund Help to Work with £700 million over four years, and it is helping 200,000 people.

The number of apprenticeships has more than doubled in this Parliament. Since the coalition came to office, 2 million apprenticeships have been started, which means that this Government have overseen the biggest ever boost to apprenticeships and fulfilled their commitment that there would be 2 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament. The apprenticeship grant for employers has provided for 92,500 apprenticeship starts, with 8,000 more in the pipeline. My constituency has seen almost 1,000 apprenticeship starts. I thank all the employers who have taken up the scheme and the excellent colleges that are delivering the training, including York college and Selby college. Apprenticeships give young people an opportunity to get on the work ladder.

The Chancellor has announced that from April 2016, employers will not have to pay employer’s national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25. That will ensure that even more apprentices are taken on. We have delivered more apprenticeships in two years than the last Government delivered in five. The Prime Minister has announced that a future Conservative Government would make a £1 billion commitment to deliver 3 million apprenticeships by 2020.

Those results show that we are on the right track, but there is plenty more to do. I am not minded to support a compulsory jobs guarantee scheme. It appears to be modelled on the Jobs Growth Wales scheme, which has helped only one in three of the young people who has applied and therefore comes nowhere near guaranteeing a job for all young people who are out of work for a year or more. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In all the debates on this issue, sweeping statements are made about how Labour Governments have higher unemployment at the end of their term than, it is implied, Tory Governments do. The Tory Government of 1979 to 1997 inherited an unemployment rate of 5.2% and left an unemployment rate of 7.4%, and in 13 out of 18 years unemployment was over 10%. We really should not take lessons from a party that produced those kinds of results during one of its longest periods in government in recent years.

I was slightly wrong when I intervened on the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams). Unemployment rose slightly between 1997 and 2010, in the midst of a world economic recession—it was 0.4% higher in 2010 than it was in 1997, and that is after a major recession. Between 1945 and 1951 unemployment fell, so I hope we will hear slightly less of that generalisation.

One of the other generalisations made by the Secretary of State was meant to frighten people outside this place with the notion that Labour creates a situation in which nobody works. He said that under Labour 20% of households had never worked. That is one in five of all households. If someone heard that, they would think it shocking and dreadful, but what he did not say was that 48% of those—nearly half—were students who had never worked because they were students, 14% were carers, 18% were sick or disabled and only 10% were unemployed.

The number of workless households has fallen slightly under this Government, but it has gone back to where it was in 2008. After the recession, there has finally been a slight fall in the number of households not in work, but, again, many are not in work because of caring responsibilities, because they have children or because they have taken early retirement. We must be realistic about the figures.

Conservative Members always throw figures at us to show how unemployment has fallen in our constituencies, but they always use the claimant count. The gap between the claimant count and the unemployment rate has been very high under this Government and that is something that we must consider. What is happening to those people who are unemployed but not receiving any benefit? Who are they, what is happening to them and how are they living? Are they getting any of the help that we are so often told about and that they are supposed to be given? I know that many of those people are living on much reduced incomes and many are not getting benefits, either because they have lost them in some way or because they have a partner in what might be only part-time work.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Listening to the hon. Lady is reminding me of Nicola Sturgeon’s speech. She is arguing for more borrowing, more spending and more tax, so is the hon. Lady buying into the SNP agenda?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We say that there is a different way to tackle the budget deficit. We said that we would do it differently in 2010. Of course, the Conservatives went to the electorate and said that they knew the answer and would eliminate the deficit in five years. They set about trying to do that and have manifestly failed. We said that we wanted to stimulate the economy rather than depress it as they did month after month in their first three years when growth fell. Despite all the measures in the so-called emergency Budget, the Conservative party has not achieved what it said it would.

We always have an argument about work experience, and the counterpoint to anything we propose is that the work experience scheme is, to use the words of the Secretary of State, unbelievably successful. As he constantly says, half the people who go through the work experience scheme get a job. What he did not say is that nearly half those who did not go through work experience in a matched cohort, according to the DWP’s own research, did not get a job. Being in the work experience programme did have an effect, but it was not the type of effect the Government suggest.

After 21 weeks, 50% of those who had been through work experience were back on benefits, but those who did not go through the scheme did not do much worse. There is no point in exaggerating these schemes. A real and proper job, which involves real training and will get people into permanent employment, is worth much more than a short-term work experience scheme, which is not to say that there should not be work experience. We are proposing that particularly for young people because they need it.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

It is simply not the case that people have been pushed out of London: 84% of the capped households in inner London that have moved continue to live in the central boroughs. The idea that hundreds of thousands of people would be forced out of London is simply not true.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister is making a point about employment and people moving into work. Is not the end of dependency a huge social change? Each one of those people has been helped by this Government.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right.

According to the latest statistics, landlord claims for possession across the whole social rented sector are down 14% on the year, and warrants for eviction are down 3%. Housing association rent arrears have fallen on the year, and rent collections are stable at 99%. We have not seen a mass exodus to the private sector. Social sector lettings have increased, moves from the social sector to the private rented sector have fallen—down almost 20,000 since 2010-11—and, as I have said, the cost of paying housing benefit in the private sector has fallen in real terms for the past two years, in contrast to what happened when the Labour party was in power.

As we approach the general election, we face a choice. The Opposition talk about welfare waste, but they wasted £26 billion on botched IT and lost control of welfare spending when they were in government. They also wasted the lives of a lot of our constituents. At its peak, there were 5 million people on out-of-work benefits—1 million for a decade or more—while youth unemployment increased by a half, long-term unemployment doubled in two years, one in five households were workless and the number of households in which no one had ever worked almost doubled.

Pensions and Social Security

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2012 provides for contracted-out defined-benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 3%. Increases are capped at that level when price inflation exceeds 3%. That, of course, is an entirely technical matter that we attend to on an annual basis, and not something that I imagine we shall need to dwell on today.

The second, smaller draft order comes about for a sequence of reasons. The Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008 gave the Government the power to abolish contracting out on a defined-contribution basis. A written ministerial statement set the point of abolition as 6 April 2012. In June 2011, the House debated and approved the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011, which makes consequential amendments to primary legislation, consistent with the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out. At the time of that debate, a minor defect in the operation of article 3 of the 2011 draft order came to light. I therefore made it clear to the House that I would return with a further amending order before the 2011 order came into force.

Accordingly, the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2012 will remove the exclusion of protected rights payments from what counts as income for the purposes of income payments orders made under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and from the scope of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, which provides that guaranteed minimum pensions and protected rights payments cannot be assigned or charged. The draft order will bring consistency with our original policy intention, namely that the tracking of protected rights should cease after the abolition of defined-contribution contracting out.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is really rather a tribute to his work that the orders are so non-controversial that there is not a single Opposition Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss the uprating of all the benefits that this country has? I pay tribute to him and congratulate him on that stunning achievement, which I do not think has ever been replicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is right that any single inflation measure will not capture the full diversity of circumstances. One of the main differences between RPI and CPI is that RPI includes mortgage interest, which is largely irrelevant to most pensioners. By excluding mortgage interest from its basket of goods, the CPI gives more weight to the things on which pensioners spend their money. Other things being equal, CPI will therefore tend to be a better fit with the spending patterns of pensioners.

The hon. Lady is right that rising fuel prices are an important issue. That is one reason why instead of simply doing our legal duty by the poorest pensioners, which was to uprate the pension credit by earnings only, which was 2.8%, we chose to do a full pass-through of the £5.30 basic state pension rise to the poorest pensioner on pension credit precisely because they have faced the pressures she describes. We are aware of that point and have sought to do something in this uprating measure to address it.

[Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. Does he agree that some quite significant changes are taking place in the hierarchy of indexes that can be used for uprating? For example, earnings, which was always thought to be by far the highest measure, is at the moment the lowest measure. In addition, changes in the housing market have affected the CPI and RPI differential. It is therefore a moving picture. It is not as straightforward as saying, “History tells the whole story.”

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. I noticed in the most recent figures that the gap between CPI and RPI was just 0.3%. That is historically low, but the numbers and relative values change a great deal. That is why our triple lock says of the basic state pension, “If it’s prices that give you the highest number, we’ll pay that; if it’s earnings, we’ll pay that; and if it’s 2.5%, we’ll pay that.” We were determined to ensure that pensioners got the best deal for the basic state pension whatever was happening to the relative value of those numbers.

As I made clear in my statement to the House at the end of last year, this Government will use the full value of the September CPI to uprate pensions and social security benefits from April 2012. At a time when the prevailing headline figure for CPI has already fallen to 3.6% and is forecast to fall further during this year, we shall be uprating the overwhelming majority of pensions and benefits by 5.2%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right that there were siren voices from some quarters suggesting that we could not afford, or that we should not go for, this inflation figure. He is absolutely right that the coalition parties decided that it was a priority. That is something that I am proud to be associated with.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the Minister agree that the Government have also gone further than they needed to on the pension credit? The requirement is to uprate by earnings but he has gone one better by increasing it by 3.9%. So not only were the siren calls resisted, but more generosity was shown to the poorest pensioners.

[Steve Webb]

There was indeed. My carefully structured speech is falling to ribbons. I was about to come to that achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

That is a matter that the Minister may well want to comment on in his response to this debate. In my view, the triple lock is certainly not the wonderful device that the Government maintain it is. As I have said, it is leading to a lower uprating of the basic state pension in the year ahead than if the RPI mechanism was still being used.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to exercise judgment about what the increase should be? One of the faults of the last Government was to be too rigid. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has already mentioned the 75p increase, but there was also the freezing of the additional pension, which, again, was considered a mean act. Is it not right for the Government to take a judgment and—on pension credit, for example—to make increases well above the rate that they have to use, which is earnings, and instead use a higher measure, in order to be fair?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is a different one from the Minister’s. The Minister says that because of the triple lock, pensioners are safeguarded and need not worry about what future judgments Ministers will make. In a way, I am rather more with the hon. Gentleman on this than with the application of the formula. Again, however, I would point out that last year—the first year that this supposedly wonderful mechanism was in place—the Government overrode it. I am therefore not quite sure what certainty pensioners would have for the future about whether, in the event of siren voices being heard—we heard about those earlier—the triple lock might be overrode in the other direction, if someone judges that to be appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

As I have said, in the first year that the triple lock was due to be put in place, it was overridden, so I am not sure about the certainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Oliver Heald]

The right hon. Gentleman is being a bit naughty. It is a general provision in many pension schemes that there is a method of indexation, and it is often permissible to exceed it. To exceed the triple lock is not to break it; it is simply to be more generous. I do not think that “overridden” is the right word to use.

[Stephen Timms]

I deny being naughty. I am simply making the point that the Government have been telling pensioners that they are now in a wonderful new era, thanks to the triple lock, yet it had to be overridden in the first year it was supposed to be in place because it was not delivering an adequate increase. I am not persuaded that the degree of confidence that Conservative Members believe to have been bestowed on pensioners is a reality.

Unemployment

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

That is an extremely serious problem for Birmingham, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to it, but there is a more widespread problem if the rate of people flowing off benefits into work is not rising. Research by the House of Commons Library for my office, which we are publishing this afternoon, shows that fewer people are flowing from benefits into work than at any point since 1998. That fall coincides with the Government’s decision last year to cancel the flexible new deal and the future jobs fund. Since January, when the future jobs fund ended, the percentage of people flowing off benefits and into work has fallen by a fifth. Between May and August last year, when the new scheme was being worked up, 86,000 fewer people came off benefits and into work than the year before. Surely Government Members would accept that that is simply not good enough.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the future jobs fund was not about providing long-term jobs, but about short-term work placements of six months in the public sector? What is the point of that? If he wants to talk about solid outcomes for the future, he should not be talking about the future jobs fund, because within weeks the people involved were out of work again.

[Mr Byrne]

Let me say as diplomatically as I can to the hon. Gentleman that since the future jobs fund closed long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has gone up by 43%. He must accept that the future jobs fund was helping to keep young people in work. We know, as Ministers accept, that keeping young people close to the labour market, close to jobs and close to the habits of work is a good thing.

[Oliver Heald]

We all agree that keeping young people close to the labour market is important, and the advantage of what the Government are proposing is that it is in the private sector, where the jobs will come, where those opportunities are being given. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that in all the years when Labour was in government the number of people not in education, employment or training stood at a very high level and barely moved, despite all the growth?

[Mr Byrne]

Let me repeat that when Labour was elected in 1997, youth unemployment was about 14%. It came down to about 12% before the recession and then, yes, of course it went up during the recession, as all unemployment did. But rather than sit there doing nothing, as this Government have over the past year and a half, we chose to act. That is why youth unemployment was coming down before the election and why, since this Government were elected, it has gone up to record highs and has done so again this morning. That is surely not a record of which the hon. Gentleman can be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is simply not correct. We managed a transition strategy that kept existing programmes going until the first part of this autumn, precisely to ensure that there was not a gap in provision between what we inherited and what we were putting in place.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend share my consternation that Opposition Front Benchers are saying that they would reintroduce the future jobs fund, given that it was an entirely public sector operation providing work placements but no permanent jobs for the future? Surely it is much better to go with the private sector option, as the Government are talking about. That is a way of providing jobs for the future.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree, and that is central to what we are trying to achieve. The measures that we are putting in place, which I will set out for the House in a moment, are designed to ensure that we help young people, indeed people of all ages, to move into roles in the private sector, where there is a long-term, sustained opportunity for them to build careers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. The statistics I will use are from the Office for National Statistics, but my experience is as a manager of a centre for unemployed people before I came into the House. I saw at first hand the failure of economic policy. That is what unemployment is: a failure of an economic system. It is not “a price worth paying” as a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said.

In the 1990s, I ran a centre that helped young people to get back to work. We gave them life experiences and choices. Whether in the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary sector, those experiences were valuable tools and gave skills to young people. It is a shame that Government Members rubbish schemes involving the voluntary and public sectors, because people need help to get those necessary skills; they do not need Government Members to attack the public sector.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is something of a deception to put a young person in a job for six months with the idea that it will lead to something at a time when the public sector is being cut? Surely it is better to give that young person a private sector job opportunity or work experience that has some prospect of leading somewhere.

[Albert Owen]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what a deception is: it is the Government saying that they will introduce a scheme next April when youth unemployment is going through the roof this month and last month.

[Oliver Heald]

It isn’t!

[Albert Owen]

Of course it is! The hon. Gentleman really needs to look at the ONS statistics. In every corner of the UK, youth unemployment is going up. Young people are facing unemployment because of the Government’s record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Listening to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), one would have thought, “Oh, the Labour Government did a marvellous job. Then along came this coalition and they mucked it up.” One would never have thought it was the Labour Government who beggared this country, who borrowed and borrowed and borrowed again, who gave us the worst deficit in the G20, who doubled national debt, who sold our gold at a record low price—£23 billion down the drain—who took £5 billion a year out of our pension funds, and who gave back our EU rebate of £7 billion a year and got nothing in return. Then, there was the moment of salvation—the last general election. A moderate coalition Government came in and started to make the sort of decisions that needed to be made in the national interest—the sort of decisions Labour ducked. Now, though, we are told, “The consequences of those difficult decisions—they’re all your fault.” They certainly are not.

If we look at the Labour years, we see that, as always happens with Labour, unemployment went up—to 2.5 million by the time they left office. We see that youth unemployment rose by 270,000 under the Labour Government. Theirs was not a successful Government, but a Government who led Britain to the brink of bankruptcy. It is our Government—the coalition Government—who are rescuing this country. Of course it is not easy. It is right to say that every redundancy is a personal tragedy—of course it is. We must try to do all we can as a country to help people back into work, but my goodness, this Government cannot be blamed for the situation from which they are trying to rescue the country.

That Labour Government were also the Government who tried to hide from the realities. Take the vast number of people claiming incapacity benefit: it is this Government who are testing and ensuring that those who receive incapacity benefit are genuinely entitled to it, and that it is not being used to mask unemployment in areas where there is a particular labour market problem. Take Labour’s measures on long-term youth unemployment, where a training scheme was introduced after 12 months and the clock was started again, to mask what was happening in this country. Although 2.5 million extra jobs—half of them were part-time, of course—were created in the Labour years, they did not seriously affect unemployment, which was reduced by about 300,000. That is because the Labour Government were not really tackling the underlying problem of the 5 million people of working age who were not engaged in the labour market.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Given that is now clear that the benefits bill will rise by £29 billion—higher than the Government predicted—does the hon. Gentleman think that the plan is working?

[Oliver Heald]

I think that this Government are making a serious, determined and honest effort to help people in very difficult times. The hon. Lady talks as though there is no eurozone crisis and the world is not experiencing the problems it is experiencing, but those problems are out there. This is a difficult time politically and economically, yet this Government are trying to help people.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the increase in unemployment in the eurozone has been much slower than the increase here?

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady should talk to young people in Spain, where youth unemployment is very high—as much as 30%, I am told. The same is true in Italy. The fact is that youth unemployment is a European problem that must be tackled in the eurozone and right across the continent.

The Government are concentrating on a Work programme that, after 12 months, gives people individualised help to look at what skills and assistance they need to get them back into work, and that, for the first time, gives the disabled a chance of getting the help they need. That is a good thing. That programme and the youth contract, with its job subsidies and extra incentive payments, are not signs of an uncaring Government.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Everything the hon. Gentleman describes counts for nothing if there are no jobs for those people to get. That is the problem that we face today: there are simply not enough jobs in the economy for everyone who is out of work to get into work.

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady makes the very important point that we need growth in our economy, and that to achieve that we need a range of measures to stimulate growth. I agree, and that is what the Government announced in the autumn statement. She should not, however, treat the whole country as though it were the same. We have much lower unemployment in my constituency—indeed, it has fallen this month—and there is no doubt that jobs can be found, but that is not true everywhere. The picture is different in different parts of the country, but if one looks at the overall picture one can say, month on month, that we have more people in the work force than we had last month. We have seen an improvement in some parts of the country, such as the part I represent, so the picture is not hopeless. The Government have a difficult task and are tackling it seriously, but sometimes we should look a little more widely at the labour market and the trends within it. We are asking people to work to an older age and to take on jobs that they might not previously have done because they were on incapacity benefit or were otherwise out of the labour market. So, we are asking more people to try to find work against a background in which that is not easy, but I believe—certainly the research shows this—that it is possible for us to see our GDP rise and our people go into work. What the Government are doing is along the right lines.

Sir John Rose said in a speech about a year ago that in Britain we train people to be hairdressers when we need engineers and IT specialists. One of the good things about the Government’s apprenticeships and skills programme is that it is targeted on areas in which we have found it difficult to create skills and on areas that are hard to fill, so there is a better match between skills and vacancies. The number of vacancies runs at between 400,000 and 500,000 each month, about 40% of which are in areas with skills shortages or areas that are hard to fill. If we can better match the skills to the vacancies, that could help. Overall, I think the Government are on the right lines.

Welfare Reform Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I completely agree. The Government’s approach seems to be predicated on a view that local management will more accurately assess local people’s needs and use a range of local provision and services to support people in need, but that argument is flawed.

We have heard mention of credit unions and charitable support, as well as recycled furniture outlets and food banks. However, let me cite the example of an individual whose washing machine or cooker breaks down. They might be given a recycled product, but such goods are often much less energy-efficient than new goods, so that person will face higher fuel costs and will have no choice but to pay them with more of their low income. Such goods also lack a guarantee and have questionable reliability, so the approach might well be a false economy.

There is also a question of whether charities will be able to sustain continuing demand and, importantly, of whether the dignity of the individual will be adequately protected. I have heard many people—young and old—say, “I am not asking for charity. I do not want charity.” I fear that people will be deterred from applying to any scheme under which they will be referred to a charity and that they will therefore be forced into the hands of the high-cost lenders and credit companies.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I might have misunderstood the hon. Lady, but is she really criticising the charities that provide such services? For example, councils for voluntary service provide excellent second-hand furniture facilities. These charities are not undignified, but offer an extremely worthwhile service through which they provide good quality goods at reasonable prices.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I absolutely accept that, but some people do not want to be forced to use such charities as their only course of action. Vulnerable people on low incomes have a great sense of pride when claiming benefit. I absolutely believe that forcing individuals into the arms of charity will mean that they will instead go to high-cost lenders.

[Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I will not give way. I want to move on to the lack of an appeals process.

I regret the loss of the extremely useful digest published by the social fund commissioner that gave an overview of appeals and reviews. That was an invaluable tool for advisers. It assisted them to help their clients to obtain their rights consistently. Such consistency is extremely important. Without a universal scheme, it will be lost, so vulnerable claimants will be left with a patchy and inconsistent service. People might have a right of appeal or independent review but, depending on local authorities’ policies, one side of the street could well get a cash grant while the other side would be given advice about which charity to approach. In the context of homelessness, I have seen that one local authority’s interpretation of “advice and assistance” can be very different from that of the local authority that gives people a list of private landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

One of the Bill’s underlying principles is that it focuses resources on those who are the most vulnerable and in need. It is also designed to reduce complexity and to make the delivery of welfare support more effective and efficient. Clause 69 satisfies those requirements. Localising the delivery of the social fund will clearly promote a more joined-up delivery of services and support.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the remarks made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who seemed to suggest that benefit claimants should be entitled as of right to buy all their furniture as new, rather than resorting to sensible and reasonably costed alternatives? What person who starts a new home does not have to buy a little bit of second-hand furniture?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about taxpayers’ money, so we have to be resourceful.

I do not believe that Labour amendments 39 and 40 would make the delivery of the social fund more effective, and nor would they further support applicants and people in need. They would put additional bureaucratic burdens on the Government and risk delaying the implementation of the reforms. Amendments 53 and 54, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would dogmatically block change by retaining the existing top-down system that is nowhere near as effective as we want it to be.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) talked about several of the anomalies and dysfunctional problems in the social fund, as well as the National Audit Office’s criticism. Members of the Public Bill Committee know that the number of crisis loan applications has soared since 2006 from 1 million to 2.7 million, while more than 17,000 people have received crisis loans in the past 12 months. Given that such a significant number of people require multiple crisis loans, delivering the social fund locally will help to signpost them to support mechanisms, rather than encouraging the top-down approach that has been in place thus far. Many of the arguments put forward by Labour Members have been flawed and inaccurate, and I think that the amendments would be counter-productive to the Bill’s objectives.