Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Owen Smith and Justin Tomlinson

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

Over the course of this Parliament, it will deliver a saving of £2.5 billion. I suspect that we will be waiting a very long time to get an alternative from those on the Opposition Benches.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

In the light of last week’s Court of Appeal ruling, will the Minister tell us how many victims of domestic violence the bedroom tax currently discriminates against and what it would cost to exempt them?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I do not believe it does discriminate. Discretionary housing payments are there to make sure that nobody falls under an artificial line. As a Government, we have trebled the support for victims of domestic abuse to £40 million, a measure I think people on all sides of the House welcome.

[Owen Smith]

That is a curious answer, given that the Court of Appeal said that it did discriminate against those victims and that the Government admitted that they discriminated against those victims. I am sure the Minister knows the answer to my question: it is 280 victims of domestic violence and it would cost about £200,000 to exempt them. If he will not tell me that, will he tell me instead how much it will cost him to try to defeat those victims in the Supreme Court? Is it more or less than the cost of exempting them?

[Justin Tomlinson]

This is about doing the right thing and having the flexibility so that people do not fall beneath an artificial line. If this is so wrong, why did Labour Members not introduce this when they brought in the measures for the private sector? It is right to make sure that those who need the support—the vulnerable in society—are given the right support.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Debate between Owen Smith and Justin Tomlinson

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Court of Appeal ruling that the bedroom tax has caused discrimination, contrary to article 14 of the European convention on human rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

We know there are people who need extra support. That is why we are providing local authorities with discretionary housing payment funding. Local authorities are best placed to assess people’s needs in their area and identify where extra support is needed.

We have increased the amount of discretionary housing payment available. On top of the £560 million since 2011, we are providing an extra £870 million over the next five years. The people involved in these cases are receiving discretionary housing payments. That is precisely why we have discretionary housing payments, and shows that these are working.

We welcome the fact that the High Court and the Court of Appeal both ruled that the public sector equality duty had been met in respect to women. Furthermore, we have won a Court of Appeal ruling where the court ruled in our favour on the policy of the spare room subsidy. In that judgment, the court found that the discretionary housing payments were an appropriate means of support for those who are vulnerable. So this is a complex area and in terms of these two latest cases, it is a very narrow ruling.

On these cases, the High Court found in our favour and we fundamentally disagree with yesterday’s Court of Appeal ruling on the ECHR. This is not a case of people losing money, for in these cases they are in receipt of discretionary housing payments. This is about whether it is possible to define such exemptions or whether direct housing payments through local authorities give the right flexibility to help a wide range of those in need. The Court of Appeal itself has already granted us permission to appeal, and we will be appealing to the Supreme Court.

[Owen Smith]

May I start by saying that I am flabbergasted by that response and I am flabbergasted that the Secretary of State, to whom I asked the question, is once more ducking his responsibilities?

We knew the bedroom tax was cruel, but we now know it is illegal, and this decisive ruling from the Court of Appeal should mark the end of this pernicious policy. The ruling could not be any clearer: the bedroom tax is unlawful and discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal considered two cases against the Secretary of State, who once again is not prepared to defend his policy: one from a victim of rape who had had a panic room installed by the police; and one from the Rutherford family, whom I know personally, and to whom I pay tribute here today both for the care they provide for their severely disabled grandson, Warren, and for the bravery they have shown in taking on the Secretary of State.

In both instances, the court ruled that the bedroom tax had caused “discrimination”. It found, moreover, that the

“admitted discrimination…has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.

So the question for the Minister—in place of the missing Secretary of State—is what does this ruling mean for the 450,000 families currently affected by the bedroom tax? If the Government are appealing to the Supreme Court, as, extraordinarily, it seems they are, can the Minister tell us on what specific grounds they are appealing? Crucially, as a matter of urgency, will the Government immediately exempt the two groups that have found to have been discriminated against from paying the bedroom tax: victims of domestic violence and the families of severely disabled children?

Can the Minister confirm there are 280 victims of domestic abuse who have had a panic room installed under the sanctuary scheme and who are affected by this policy? Can he further confirm that exempting victims of domestic abuse would only cost the Government £200,000 a year? By comparison, can he tell us how many hundreds of thousands of pounds he has already spent on legal fees defending this vile policy, and how much more he is prepared to defend? Does he have a blank cheque to defend this to the end?

Can the Minister also tell us how many families with severely disabled children are currently paying the bedroom tax? Will he inform the House what proportion of domestic violence victims and families with disabled children are in receipt of discretionary housing payments? This ruling was on two specific grounds, but will the Minister confirm that the bedroom tax is failing in every regard? He talks of discretionary housing payments, but his own Government’s report, which was dumped before Christmas, admitted that 75% of victims did not receive DHP, that three quarters of those hit by the bedroom tax were cutting back on food, that only 5% had been able to move and that 80% regularly ran out of money.

Politics is about choices, and the choice that faced the Secretary of State today was very clear. He could have come to the House and admitted that this was a rotten policy that was punishing poor people across the country, and he could have scrapped it. Instead, he is sitting on the Front Bench before going back to Caxton House to consult his lawyers in order to defend this policy against the victims of domestic violence and the parents of disabled children. We know the choice he took.

[Justin Tomlinson]

To be absolutely clear, this is about whether it is possible to find such exemptions or whether direct housing payments through local authorities give the right flexibility to help a wide range of those in need, and we will be appealing this to the Supreme Court. If we try to set strict categories, people—especially those with unique circumstances and issues—could fall just below an artificial line, meaning that they would miss out. Is it realistic to expect that here in London we could set such an exhaustive list? Direct housing payments, for which we are providing £870 million over the next five years, give flexibility that allows us to work with organisations such as the police, social services and medical professionals to provide a co-ordinated level of support underwritten by the public sector equality duty.

It is right to say that politicians face choices. When the local housing allowance was introduced into the private sector under the last Labour Government, no additional support was provided to those in the private sector who faced exactly the same challenges as those we are discussing here. Why have things changed so much now? We keep making references to taxes. What about the 1.7 million people on the social housing waiting list? What about the 241,000 people in overcrowded accommodation? The Opposition have scant regard for them, but they are the people we are speaking for, and it is right to provide flexibility and a co-ordinated approach. This is the right thing to do.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Debate between Owen Smith and Justin Tomlinson

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I found it interesting to learn, as part of the massive data dump before Christmas, that some of our largest banks such as J. P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch paid absolutely no corporation tax in the UK last year, in the same week when we learned that there would not be an investigation of the practices of our banks. Others can draw conclusions from that; I will stick to the subject at hand, which is universal credit.

I turn to transitional protection for those affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, the Government keep telling us that there will be transitional protection, and I will go so far as to concede that that is true—sort of—for some of the 350,000 people who will be on universal credit by April.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

Two hundred and fifty thousand.

[Owen Smith]

The Minister says it is 250,000, but 350,000 is the latest estimate that I have seen from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Perhaps it is wrong—it could be wrong about other things in future, as well. However, there will not be transitional protection for the 5.8 million people who will eventually be on universal credit. Even for the 350,000 who are currently on it or will be on it by March, there will not really be transitional protection if they undergo anything that constitutes what the Government call a “serious change of circumstances”. In that case, the maintenance of their in-work support at tax credit levels will stop. It will interest the House, especially given the Secretary of State’s interest in marriage as an institution, that getting married will constitute a serious change of circumstances. If someone who is on tax credits and enjoying transitional protection gets married, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will take that money away from them.

There will be no protection whatever for any of the millions of new claimants by 2020. The Secretary of State has implied on several occasions that there will be transitional protections. Indeed, when he intervened on me in the debate before Christmas—he was not leading for the Government in that debate—he said explicitly:

“We are transitionally protecting those who are moving on to universal credit.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 696.]

Unfortunately, the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, had to correct him in the House of Lords, saying:

“It is not the same as transitional protection…it might be some more work or it might be upskilling”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2015; Vol. 767, c. 1910.]

In truth, the £69 million fund that the Secretary of State has prayed in aid as transitional funding will in no way make up for the £3.2 billion loss over this Parliament.

The truth came out in the infamous data dump of documents snuck out in Christmas week. Responding to criticism by the Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee, Ministers had to admit that the only way to recoup the losses would be to work an additional three to four hours a week. That is right—the House heard me correctly. The Government are now saying to a single mother who is working full time on the national minimum wage and looking after her children in the evening and who will lose £3,000 that she has to get another job working an extra three or four hours a week—approximately 200 hours a year—to make sure that she is no worse off. Tell me, Mr Speaker—I cannot see it—how that single mother who has a child at home and who is working full time will, even on the new national minimum wage, be able to work an extra three to four hours a week or 200 hours a year. Is she meant to get a job after work in a bar, in a garage or serving coffee? Is she meant to get a job in addition to the full-time job she is doing during the day and in addition to looking after her children—for example, cleaning in the mornings—to earn an extra few quid?

What on earth is the incentive for that mother to undertake that extra work? I ask that because the other massively damaging effect of the cuts is that they fundamentally undermine and destroy the very premise of universal credit—to make work pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his equally deft selectivity. Dare I say that my point is that universal credit might have done all those things? If we had, as was originally envisaged, a 55% taper rate, or even if we had the current 65% taper rate, and if we had work allowances that were double what are now proposed, as was originally intended, universal credit would have made work pay and it would have been an incentive for people to work those extra hours. I have made that plain in my speech. However, with the cuts—the seven successive cuts that have been made since 2012—it will not deliver what was promised. The hon. Gentleman and the country are being sold a pup by the Secretary of State. It was not what was written on the tin when he first brandished it. Conservative Members need to understand that, because thousands of families in their respective constituencies will be affected by those cuts. Many of them will lose as much or more than they would have lost under the tax credit cuts. I say to all Tory Members: join us or tell me how these cuts are different from those they stood against last time around, other than that Tory Members might not quite have the time to realise that these cuts are being made before they next stand in an election. So far as I can see, that is the only plausible reason for their failure to follow their consciences this time and rail against the cuts.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I want to be clear on one point. The taper at the conception of the policy was 65%. There has been no cut and no change to that. It is important that the shadow Secretary of State does not make a mistake on that.

[Owen Smith]

I did not make a mistake in any way, shape or form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know has worked incredibly hard in his constituency to help more people get into work. Across the country, more than 2 million more people are in work—record numbers—with record low numbers of people out of work.

Welfare spending overall went up by almost 60% in real terms, costing every household an extra £3,000 a year in 2010. What was the result of all that spending? The number of working people in poverty actually went up by around 20% and nearly one in five households had no one working. That was too often the norm.

[Owen Smith]

Will the Minister confirm that under his Government welfare spending has gone up more than it has under any Government, breaching £1 trillion under the previous Government, and £130 billion more than under the previous Labour Government?

[Justin Tomlinson]

In percentage terms, it is now back to 2008-09 levels. These reforms are key to that. Having an open blank chequebook is simply not an approach that we or hard-working taxpayers would take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend highlights the importance of that personalised support, which people find absolutely vital. We have seen this in our casework, in our experience of life and through friends who have navigated through the system. My hon. Friend has taken the time to visit her jobcentres, and I would gently encourage the shadow Secretary of State to go and visit one of the universal credit sites and to see it at first hand.

[Owen Smith]

I spoke to one of the people piloting universal credit just two weeks ago. Is the Minister seriously telling the single mother I mentioned earlier, who is working full time on the new national minimum wage, that she should not worry about the £3,000 drop in her income that will result from these cuts? Is he saying that she should not worry because she will have a personal work coach who will encourage her and give her greater confidence to get another job, maybe in management? Is he seriously saying that to the country?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will extend my invitation further: I will join the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to come and see this work in action. If he is worried about going on his own, I will in effect be his work coach. We have talked about examples. Let us talk about a working lone parent with two children who is doing 35 hours on the national living wage. They will be £330 better off. We could continue to trade examples, but that would be to assume that this is a static analysis. I will address that point later.

The evidence is clear: universal credit is working. Independently reviewed statistics published at the end of last year show that under universal credit people spend 50% more time looking for work, are 8 percentage points more likely to have been in work, and when in work, they earn more and seek more hours. So, universal credit is supporting people whether they move into or out of work, and focusing on getting people not just into work but into sustainable employment where earnings increase and the number of hours they work rises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

This will be the last time I intervene on the Minister, I promise. Is he seriously telling the House that the £69 million flexible support fund that he has just prayed in aid once again will in any way make up for the £3.2 billion loss to working families?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The shadow Secretary of State is mis-matching the two parts. The people who are going across will continue to have their cash protected. The £69 million fund will provide ongoing support to help people to navigate through the process.

[Justin Tomlinson]

This is actually delivered through the jobcentres and the universal service, so I think we will have to discuss that a bit further.

Figures have been bandied about, and I want to make it clear that they were wildly inaccurate. They were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of universal credit, which is why I am so keen to arrange a visit for the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). The vast majority of those on the universal credit caseload will not lose out as a result of the changes. That is because the measure affects only those people who are in work, most of whom would have received nothing under tax credits. I have not seen the Opposition campaigning on this issue before. Unlike tax credits, universal credit is a dynamic benefit.

[Owen Smith]

rose—