Welfare Reform Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am saying to him precisely what he said to me all those years ago—that many of the details will be dealt with in secondary legislation. The Bill contains a framework that will include, among other things, provision for a child care element in universal credit. That is fundamental, and we all agree that there should be such an element, just as there should be elements relating to disability and to other aspects of the current benefits system that need to be replicated in universal credit.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Why does the Minister expect us—and, indeed, the general public—to accept his statements about the impact of this huge reform when so much of the detail in unknown? Is it not reasonable for us to request the details that will tell us whether people are in fact going to be better off?

[Chris Grayling]

I expect it for precisely the same reason that the right hon. Member for East Ham expected me to support his education measures 10 years ago. He asked me to take on trust many of the same kinds of thing that I am asking the House to accept today. We have been completely transparent in setting out the different stages of the formulation of universal credit, and about the consultation processes that we have been through to fill in the details. We have also been clear and transparent in setting out the principles that we are following in trying to fill in those details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.

The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In Committee, we heard a great deal about these mini jobs. We have just heard the Minister say that we should not be worried about the effect on parents of children of school age because a job could be encompassed within school hours. Why is it so necessary to take money away from people who are trying to improve their families’ prospects of getting out of poverty in order to help people in mini jobs—although I do not fully understand the concept—because surely those would be covered by school hours even more?

[Chris Grayling]

The changes we made last year—the reduction from 80% to 70% support—merely returned us to the situation that applied before 2006. On the mini jobs, I want us to spend the money we have on supporting people from deprived backgrounds and in the most deprived situations into the work place so that they can make the most of their lives. The mini job is a perfectly reasonable way of doing that. I also happen to think that for many lone parents, a mini job during schools hours is a perfectly reasonable alternative that might mean that the need for child care is not great. None the less, the option should be there. We should not be writing—this is the key point about some of the Opposition amendments—into primary legislation rules that cannot be undone for two or three years, while we wait for a parliamentary slot. Instead, we need to set out straightforwardly a situation in regulations that can be amended if the situation requires. I could not possibly accept an amendment from the right hon. Member for East Ham that would write into primary legislation actual amounts of benefits that should be paid. The Labour party would never have done that while in government. It would not have happened, and I am not going to tolerate the idea now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The £2 billion contains sufficient money for us to be able to deliver the transitional protection and the various changes. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her the more detailed figures we have published so far. We have given a clear commitment to transitional protection. It costs what it costs, but we have made a sensible projection of what we believe it will cost, which is contained in the budget for the spending review period. It is important to ensure that there are no cash losers as a result of the transition, but it is impossible to make a big change of this kind without finding that people in subsequent years are in a different financial position from their counterparts in previous years. Inevitably, some will move one way; others will move another. The only fair and proper way of dealing with the situation is to ensure that everyone is protected in cash terms.

We think that we have put together a framework in part 1 that will give us the flexibility to introduce the universal credit and to fine-tune the proposals as necessary so that if we do not get everything quite right at the start, we can fine-tune as we go by, and that a future Government will have the flexibility to do that. We have made absolutely sure that we have the appropriate protections in place so that there is an element for child care, for parents, for those with disabilities, and so on and so forth.

We think we have created a sensible framework of the kind that in different areas of policy and in different ways were created through primary legislation by previous Governments, including the last Government. I do not believe for a second that it would be prudent to write into the Bill the sort of amendments that the Opposition have tabled. I have responded to their wish to see more measures brought forward on the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which I think is right and proves that we will listen and make amendments where it is sensible to do so. I am afraid that the Opposition are seeking to write the sort of detail into the Bill that they would never have put in legislation when they were in government; they would never have followed that approach themselves. That is why I cannot possibly accept their amendments and why I ask the House to accept the Government new clauses and to reject the Opposition amendments.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The debate we have had—in Committee and this evening—shows some of the pitfalls of saying, “We are going to simplify benefits.” The Minister and his colleagues have said to the country generally, “We're going to simplify benefits. This is a simpler system, so it must, by definition, be a good thing.” They expected and, indeed, got from many people the answer, “We agree that benefits should be simplified.” The problem is that when dealing with real people and real situations it all becomes much more complicated, as our debates tonight and on previous occasions have demonstrated quite clearly.

The details of issues such as school meals, health charges and the even bigger matter of child care are extremely important, and will have a real impact on whether the new system works for people, will make them better off, and enables them to get into employment, stay in employment, improve their circumstances and get out of poverty. We all agree that, except for those who suffer from real and deep health problems, employment is the best way out of poverty. If, however, such an important element as child care is left so undefined, we cannot know the answer to that question.

Frankly, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are told, “If you don’t accept it, don’t vote for it or don't agree with it, you are throwing over the whole issue of welfare reform.” I do not accept that. Nor do I accept the Minister’s view that he was given that sort of response by the previous Government and that there should be simply a framework—an empty bookcase, as he was wont to say in Committee—as there was before. It seems to me that if he thought it was wrong then—and it sounds as if he did—it may still be wrong now. As I said in Committee, people should not be asked to buy that empty bookcase without knowing whether it contains classics or cheap comics.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Government have gone to great lengths to engage all parliamentarians, including the hon. Lady, in discussions about the nature and design of child care. Is she saying that she would prefer the Government to present a fait accompli, rather than listening to her and giving her a chance to inform, and possibly change, Government policy?

[Sheila Gilmore]

In general, I should prefer legislation not to be pushed through all its stages until more of the details have been dealt with. When the original Bill was presented to the House, some of the consultations with the public were still taking place. An important consultation about disability benefits, with which we shall deal later, had not finished before the Bill was printed, and consultations about child maintenance did not end until April, when proposals were already in writing. There are other ways of doing things, and the fact that they have or have not been done properly by past Governments does not strike me as a reason for not trying to do them properly now.

Child care is particularly important to people who want to improve their position. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that we had been consulted, and indeed we were invited to a briefing at which we were presented with certain scenarios, but I am not sure that I gained a very clear understanding from that session of exactly what the Government were proposing. I subsequently received briefings from other organisations, as no doubt has the hon. Gentleman, expressing the view that the new child care arrangements, such as they were—the proposals had not been finalised—would not leave people better off. It is a question of what we accept and what we believe.

It is difficult for us to form a view, but it is possible that if we do not get the child care arrangements right, many people will decide that work does not pay. They will feel either that they must reduce their hours considerably, or that they cannot afford to continue their work and must give it up altogether. I do not think that that is the outcome that the Government seek.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady clearly supports the fait accompli proposed by the Opposition—including, it seems, the ending of the whole principle of the mini-job, which would imprison people with child care responsibilities in their homes. Does she really think that that is the answer?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am not convinced that the new clause does away with the entire principle of the mini-job, although I would certainly have liked—preferably before we embarked on the Bill—a debate about what was, for me, a new idea, possibly good and possibly bad. I do not think we have fleshed out exactly what we are doing in this regard.

As I said in an intervention earlier, if the idea is to encourage people to undertake work involving all hours of employment—given that they are able to obtain such work—I am not sure where the so-called mini-jobs will be found or what their quality will be. Are we talking about six or eight hours a week, as some people seem to be? Where will the jobs be, to what extent will they increase earnings, and will the necessary child care be available?

[Guto Bebb]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady refers to micro-jobs as if they were not important. I should have expected a Scottish Member to be delighted by the Government’s attempts to make work pay. Shockingly, the number of people who have never been employed in Scotland increased from 37,000 in 2000 to 40,000 in 2005, and to 45,000 in 2010. I think that, rather than being disparaging about micro-jobs, the hon. Lady should welcome the fact that the Government are serious about showing that work pays and gives people self-respect in our society.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I hope that those figures for Scotland are not like the figures for the whole United Kingdom, which, according to the Sunday newspaper that I read this week, included students. That was in the small print, but the fact remains that the wrong figure is constantly given.

I am not defending circumstances in which people are unable to work. However, we should examine the whole notion of the mini-job much more carefully than we have been able to do so far. We need to be clear about exactly what it will deliver. We already know that many people who have been able to start work over the past 10 or 15 years as a result of measures introduced by the previous Government, including families with children, are still living in poverty.

The mini-jobs, or micro-jobs, that we are discussing may indeed enable people to work, and being able to work for six, eight or 10 hours may be seen as some great moral advantage. I fear, however, that the jobs will be of such poor quality and so poorly paid that those people will remain in poverty, and the path out of that poverty does not appear to be very well mapped. I think that we should have given the proposal much more consideration before using it as a reason to remove child care provision from other people.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady seems to be digging herself into a hole. She has admitted that the measures taken by the last Government did not work, and that people were left in poverty. Surely she should welcome an innovative approach from the present Government, and surely she should stop trying to filibuster their proposal into the long grass by demanding so much blessed detail that nothing will ever get done. We owe our families more than that after the Labour Government’s failure to get people into work and out of poverty.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s premise. People were able to work as a result of the measures introduced by the Labour Government, such as the minimum wage, but we did not manage to take all families out of poverty because of the type of jobs that many of those people were doing and the levels of income that they received. It is wrong to suggest that a system allowing people to work for fewer hours will in itself deliver them from poverty.

[Sarah Newton]

How on earth does the hon. Lady think someone who has not had a job can obtain a better job?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Of course people have to work, and of course they have to be able to work in real, proper jobs. The hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) should think, at times, about the type of jobs that they are talking about, and the kind of experiences that people will have. I want to be sure that those who go into work undergo a proper job progression rather than becoming stuck in a sideline meaning that a box can be ticked because they are now working and have some work experience.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that that is exactly what happened when people were stuck in jobs that paid them to work for 16 hours, so that it made no sense for them to work for 15 or 17?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think that it often made a lot of sense for people to work for 16 hours and more, and issues such as child care were key to that. In many cases, child care costs kick in when hours like that are involved.

We should not try to justify reductions in child care provision simply by saying that they may help another group who need a certain amount of help—and, indeed, they may not do so. We need to examine the model thoroughly, because otherwise we will not know what will happen. Depending on which version of the proposals the Government decide to adopt, help for child care for people working 16-plus hours may be cut and there may not be a call on child care costs for people doing mini-jobs. If that is the case, money would be freed up. I am unsure as to whether there will be a call on it for the following reason.

Some mini-jobs will be at times such as 5 until 8 o’clock in the evening, and those doing them might not have another family member who can undertake child care at that time. Child care costs may therefore be incurred—although I am not sure from what source any child care might be found at such a time of day. When the hours of a mini-job fit in with nursery or school hours, however, child care costs may not be incurred. Therefore, if there is not a call on child care costs for people working fewer than 16 hours, I hope that the available money will be recycled for the people from whom it appears it is to be taken, regardless of whether we know there is a demand for it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady speaks as though the idea that a woman looking after a child would work for fewer than 16 hours a week is novel and has never happened before. Let us consider the situation for one of the obvious age groups, however: for children aged five to six, some 61% of lone parents who are in work are in part-time work, and 65% of partnered mothers in work are in part-time work. Many of those people will be working for fewer than 16 hours as their children are so very young. Is it right not to help them with child care in those circumstances? Why does the hon. Lady want to persecute people who work fewer than 16 hours a week?

[Sheila Gilmore]

With all due respect, I think the boot is on the other foot. It appears that the people who are to be persecuted are those who work hours for which they require child care and who get assistance at present. Let us consider the proposals that were put before us at the briefing meetings—which I would not necessarily call fully consultative meetings. Under the proposals, it appears that people who currently get child care assistance will have that taken away, and that that will amount to a substantial loss which will lead possibly to their reducing their working hours. If they do that, their ability to move on with their work experience and their lives, and to get out of poverty, will be much reduced. I do not think positing one group against the other is helpful, therefore, and I would much rather we gave assistance wherever we can.

In Committee, Opposition Members were constantly expected to balance our suggestions against the costs that the Government have set up, but we would not start from that point. It is ludicrous to say that the Opposition have no right to make any spending suggestions as we do not support the Government’s model of deficit reduction. If we put more people out of work by cutting our deficit so quickly, as this Government seem intent on doing, benefit bills will rise and tax takes will fall, and we will not resolve the deficit problems in any case. That is one of the major reasons why we have opposed this Government’s stance. If we have a different view on how to tackle the deficit, the speed at which to tackle it, where to reduce spending and the impact of that, it is perfectly legitimate for us not to accept the spending envelope the Government have decided to impose.

I would hope that we would not just think about how we might take a little away from one group that happens to be a bit less poor than another group because we want to help the most needy. I noted in this afternoon’s departmental questions that Ministers were quick to take up one aspect of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech today: the comments he made about people on benefits. They were not so quick to mention his comments about the responsibility of those in our society who are a good deal better off, however. If we do not look at both those issues, we will be making the poor pay the cost of the economic crisis.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady speaks as though everyone is going to be terribly badly off under universal credit, but the figures in table A.2 on page 80 of the Red Book make it very clear that almost everyone is much better off, and that is especially the case in respect of part-time work. Does she not accept that that is positive, and that the Government have made sure that the transition will be managed in such a way that people will do better?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I shall try to unpick that question. First, it has almost been forgotten—I hope not entirely forgotten—that universal credit will be introduced after £18 billion has been cut from this country’s welfare spending, so many people will already be worse off before universal credit comes into effect. Secondly, we do not know when the transitional protection we keep hearing about will end. Will it end and begin only if somebody gets into work or falls out of work, or will there be other circumstances in which that transitional protection will cease, which would mean that many people would be considerably worse off? The third reason that I have concerns about the assertion that people will be better off under universal credit is to do with all the points raised in our discussion of these amendments. Unless we are clear about issues such as the cost of child care and school meals, and how they will be accounted for under universal credit, we cannot know whether the assumptions made, the figures given and the statements made about people being better off will prove to be true.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady has repeated the much-quoted figure of £18 billion being taken out of welfare spending, but does she acknowledge that £3.75 billion of that is coming from higher rate taxpayers such as myself who receive child benefit on a four-weekly basis? Would she like me to get my child benefit back after 2013?

[Sheila Gilmore]

In answer to that, let me give a personal view that I would not want to attribute to all my colleagues, as I am unsure whether they would all accept it. If we feel that we can no longer pay child benefit as it was previously paid and that we must make savings, it would have been much fairer to have made that part of taxable income. For many reasons, that would have avoided some of the anomalies that the Government’s proposal has set up. However, we have frequently rehearsed those reasons, so I shall not spend a lot of time talking about them now. If savings had to be made, we might have ensured that some of that money came back in the way I have suggested. I personally think that, subject to a fair taxation system, that would be a better way of dealing with this issue than having the suggested abrupt cut-off.

I want to talk about savings, and in particular the savings cap being introduced on people who work. It is astonishing that this change should be made by a Government who have so much to say about their wanting to encourage people to get back on their own feet, to be self-reliant and to save for their future. It is very easy just to say that the average amount of savings of a person of working age is only £300—and that is frightening and appalling for our society if it is true. However, for those people who currently—[Interruption.] I do not know what is so funny. Currently, people who have savings and receive tax credit have been able to get assistance without losing that money, but the Government’s view appears to be different for those who fall on hard times, no matter what their circumstances are, and no matter what situation they find themselves in. We will, no doubt, have this debate again on Wednesday when we discuss non-contributory and contributory employment and support allowances. The Government’s view seems to be that the first thing someone should call on in difficult circumstances is any savings that they have previously been able to make. There is a lot that is unacceptable about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is important in this debate to get away from the attempt to say that one group of people are hard-working taxpayers and another group do not pay tax and should have their rights diminished. The taxpayer may also be receiving certain benefits, if we feel that it is correct for them to do so. People pay taxes in all sorts of ways. They pay council tax, VAT and often income tax at various points in their life. They may do that while they are receiving benefits or they may have done so just before a change in their circumstances took them below the threshold for paying income tax; they may have had to reduce their hours or they may have been forced to do so. These are not different groups of people.

In our approach to these issues we need to consider the following seriously: we should see our welfare state not only as something into which all of us pay when we can, but as something from which we have an opportunity to take when things happen to us. These two groups of people should not be fighting each other. Someone should not say, “I am hard working; you are not. You should not be getting, because somebody else is working.” At a lot of the income levels that the hon. Gentleman mentions people probably will be entitled to benefits, be that help with their rent or council tax, or some other benefit. I ask the Government to think again about their attitude to people who are doing exactly what they have been asked to do, which is to get into employment, to work hard and to save. I ask the Government not to keep this savings provision in the Bill.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the child care element of the universal credit. We did not have the chance to talk about it at length in Committee, but we all got invited to a discussion with the Secretary of State on the various different options for child care. This is an essential part of the equation that any parent considers when deciding the best way for them to approach the workplace.

I wish to talk about a slightly different approach from the one in new clause 2. I disagree with new clause 2, because I do not think that it takes the right approach, and I want to say exactly why. First, it retains the characteristic whereby someone has to work for a minimum of 16 hours to qualify for support with their child care. That fails to take into account an entire psychological barrier and frame of reference that a parent can have when they move into work. It is very hard to take the first steps into work, particularly when someone makes that choice—which, as we have heard, is optional, with smaller children. Those are large steps to take, so allowing parents to move into work by doing fewer hours—perhaps two days a week in the office or at work—is an extremely important part not only of encouraging a parent to move into the workplace, but, importantly, encouraging parents to maintain contact with the workplace when their children are small. That is a really important benefit of the approach that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I vividly remember going back into full-time work after maternity leave—and on that first day back, frankly, one is amazed that one’s child is still alive at the end of the day for which they have been left with someone else. The psychological transition is very important, and taking it in smaller incremental steps—perhaps with more generous support—is extremely important, because it builds up trust in the alternative child care while also allowing the child to get used to it in small steps. I urge the Minister to suggest that the Department consider some other iterations along those lines.

My other point concerns the review of the consultation put forward by the Secretary of State.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who was so generous in giving way to me.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady consider whether, in this debate, we have got ourselves into the situation of being forced to contrast one group of people who are trying to work against another? Perhaps she would care to join me—I am not sure whether my Front Benchers would agree with me, and perhaps her Front Benchers would not, either—in saying that it would be better to give child care assistance to people who work all hours. Perhaps we should join forces to argue for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree. In fact, let me use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said:

“Finally we will never encourage a sense of responsibility if society is becoming more and more unfair, and more and more divided.”

We know that Labour divided our country more between the rich and the poor when it was in office, and we know that giving people who have £50,000 in the bank out-of-work benefits would be deeply unfair to the ordinary working person in the street.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I apologise for missing so much of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am sure I would have been greatly entertained. However, I was not aware that the amendment before the House would give out-of-work benefits to people with savings. This is about people who are working and trying to get themselves back on their feet, which he said he wanted.

[Charlie Elphicke]

If we asked the person in the street, “Do you think that benefits, even universal credit benefits, should be paid to someone who has got £50,000 in the bank?”, they would give us a pretty robust response. I represent a constituency with a lot of deprivation. Average earnings are about £20,000 a year—£50,000 is a king’s ransom to the people whom I serve. Most people could never dream of having so much money in cash. They might have it locked up in their house, but they could never dream of having that kind of money in ready cash. It would be an astonishing position to be in. If I went down Dover high street and said, “Do you think that people should get universal credit if they have £50,000 in the bank?”, the response would be demonstrative, pretty conclusive and probably pretty rude—it would be expletive-laden.

In my constituency, when I knock on a door, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), and say, “What are your concerns?”, after expressing vehement concerns about the number of overseas visitors, 1 million of whom have taken jobs in recent years, and about the 5 million people who could work but do not, people move on and say, “And that person down the street has a plasma TV and so on, and they have not worked a day in their lives.” We have discussed this important and serious issue. We need to encourage people to take responsibility and to work, and not encourage them through amendments such as amendments 23 and 24, which would allow people to claim benefits despite having £50,000 in the bank.

This whole strand of thinking is symptomatic of a way of thinking that has caused the number of working-age people in relative poverty, after housing costs, to rise from 6.5 million in 2001-02 to 7.9 million in 2009-10. That is a staggering rise. We have to bear it in mind that in those years this country enjoyed the most massive boom, yet a whole load of our countrymen slipped further into relative poverty. It is not just a question of intergenerational poverty or of households that have not worked for ever and ever; it is a question of going into relative poverty. The message sent by amendments 23 and 24 is not one of responsibility. It is not a message that says, “Look, we are on your side. You’re hard-working. We will support you.” The message sent by the philosophy of universal credit is one of responsibility: “If you work hard, you will be better off, and you will not be subjected to the dependency culture.” That has to be one of the most important and essential messages that the Government can send, and it is why the Bill will, in my view, be the most important Bill in this Parliament.

I hope that the House will indulge me on one more amendment—amendment 33, which deals with pensions. If a man aged 66 is married to a woman aged 45, how can it be fine for that woman not to be incentivised to work? I am deeply troubled by this. I put this issue to the right hon. Member for East Ham, and the Minister asked him whether he supported the principle, and thrice the cock crowed, yet he would not deny it—or, indeed, not deny it. It was wrong to table an amendment defending that principle, and to say, when an argument was made saying, “How can it be right?”, “Ah well, isn’t it bad of the Government to sneak it into a schedule.”

The House deserves a better argument than that for why previously people were not incentivised to work, and why the Government are wrong to take action on it. The Government are right to take action, and they are right to send the message that work should always pay, and that, if someone is of working age, they really should work. We have a massive mountain to climb: there are 5 million people in this country who could work but do not, who have been encouraged to live in a dependency culture, and who would be worse off if they went into work. There is much evidence that that sucked in 1 million people from abroad and overseas to fill the 1 million or so jobs created during the recent boom, while we cast 5 million people on to the slagheap of welfare dependency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from all the evidence that has been given to us by the experts who are running housing associations that they do not have flexibility in their stock. The one and two-bedroom properties that are needed for people downsizing from three and four-bedroom houses are not available. They simply do not exist. There is not a supply that will enable anything other than a tiny minority of people to avoid this punitive benefit cap, because people will not be able to move. The property is not there for them to move to.

Nor is the property there for people who need adapted properties. I think it was my hon. Friend who made the point that when the cost-benefit analysis tips in favour of someone being required to move because of the value of their adaptations, they then have to make adaptations to another property. I had someone in my surgery last week who had an occupational therapist from Westminster council visit them in November about adapting their property, and they had not heard another word. That person, a wheelchair user who is unable to use their own bathroom, has been waiting eight months for the process of adaptations to be even started. We can multiply that situation by 108,000.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Has my hon. Friend noticed yet another anomaly that will arise? If somebody moves from an adapted home to another home that then has to be adapted, what guarantee is there that the first house will get a tenant who needs the adaptations that have already been done? There is therefore a waste of resources, not the best possible use of property that housing associations and councils attempt to achieve.

[Ms Buck]

There is the remotest chance of the property that such a person is leaving being occupied by someone who requires the same level of adaptation. It is like playing three-dimensional chess—it will be almost impossible to fit all the people into the properties that exist. At the moment there is supposed to be a flood of people who will leave under-occupied properties in the north-west of England and swap with people in London and the south-east. Then when all the individuals who need adapted properties are considered, it becomes a literal impossibility to ensure that properties match people’s needs properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)for taking the time to talk to us about her amendments today. When I heard some of the reports on the radio this morning I thought that today would be a big day, when we would really be able to understand the Opposition’s approach to welfare reform—but on the basis both of Question Time and of the debates on the Bill, many of us feel that there is a lot more work to be done.

Today was an important opportunity for Opposition Front Benchers to set out their amendments and how they would change the Bill, to show how they would deal with housing benefit. I have listened hard, but there is still no clarity. In fact, what we have heard is more and more contradictions from the hon. Lady. In her opening remarks she said that she did not want the housing benefit bill to rise, and she did not agree with housing benefit taking the strain. However, the amendments run completely contrary to those objectives. Amendment 31 would significantly erode the savings that the Government propose, and amendment 32 would draw the exemption so wide that it would be far broader than anything recommended by the specialist organisations. That is a concern.

Nor are we any wiser as a result of the Opposition Leader’s speech today, which did more to create further confusion in this area. He talked about supporting people into housing as a result of their volunteering or working. That may sound familiar, but if the Opposition seek to link volunteering and work with housing, we hope that they do not intend to undermine eligibility for lone parents when it comes to their housing needs. It is difficult to comprehend how the hon. Lady will achieve her objectives with her amendments.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am fascinated by the Minister’s suggestion that people who volunteer cannot be lone parents, as she has just contrasted one group with the other.

In relation to housing, it could be suggested that amendment 31 would not achieve the results that the Government want. Having made one change—reducing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile—are the Government really suggesting that they would be happy to see it move far beneath that if a gap appeared between that percentile and rent, if uprating were only in line with the CPI? Rents were previously uprated according to the movement of the market.

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Lady recalls our debates in Committee, she will know that I have already made this very clear. The Government will keep such matters under review. Of course we want to ensure that things work as they should. What is important to me is that the Opposition have not set out in these amendments the principles that they would follow in this area. Do they want to continue to see spiralling rents in the private rented sector? Would they leave that unchecked? Do they want to see people on housing benefit being able to afford rents that those in work could never afford? Are the Opposition content to leave 250,000 social housing sector tenants in overcrowded accommodation when we have 1 million spare rooms paid for by housing benefit? The Opposition have failed to address those issues in their amendments today. In fact, they have gone further—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me for making a little progress? Many other hon. Members want to come in on this debate, and I want to set out my response to the amendments before we run out of time.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, I want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Westminster North said about rising homelessness. I am sure that she believed in the effectiveness of the previous Government, but she cannot expect the sort of impacts on homelessness that she implied after just one month of a policy being in place. I do not accept that the policies we are advocating will have the impacts on homelessness that she talked about. She has to get real: these policies have only been in place since April, and could not be driving the sorts of changes that she mentioned by this stage.

The hon. Lady said that her premise was affordability and access to housing. May I remind her that, given that 40%—and in some areas, including coastal towns, 70%—of those in the private rental market are in receipt of housing benefit, it is critical that we keep control of the amount of money going out in housing benefit? That way we can help the very first-time buyers whom she purports to want to help, who are finding it so difficult to get into the purchase market at the moment, and who need to go into the rental market. The previous Government let those people down by not keeping control of housing benefit rents during their tenure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

Would my hon. Friend mind if I made a tiny bit more progress on the amendment, and tried to deal with some of the others?

In that spirit, we are considering the most effective way of monitoring and evaluating the housing support measures. That will enable us to understand the effectiveness of the measures in the same way as we will understand the 2011 measures. However, reviewing the operation of the changes in the first year will be too soon—something that I have also considered in relation to other measures in the Bill. We need to ensure that the measures have time to mature and bed in, so that their effectiveness can be properly evaluated. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friends that conducting such a review after the first year would be the best way to assess the effectiveness of our policies. Therefore, I cannot commit to the timetable that they propose, even if we are attracted to the idea of conducting comprehensive research. However, I can reassure them that we are looking at ways of funding an external review—this time on the measures in the Bill—and that we will consider that in some detail in the coming months.

Amendment 32 was also tabled by the Opposition. I am sure that Members are aware of the pressures that we face in social housing; indeed, there are some facts that we have to consider before we can look at the amendment in any detail. We know that less than 5% of social tenants in England move each year in the social housing sector. That is not helpful, given the 250,000 overcrowded households waiting for a suitable property to meet their needs. There is also limited social housing stock, with waiting lists of 5 million people, 250,000 tenants in overcrowded housing and almost 1 million spare bedrooms being paid for through housing benefit. There is a mismatch in the market. I am quite astonished that the hon. Member for Westminster North spent no time talking about that or showing her support for the action that we are taking to put it right.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is important that the Minister establishes whether the Government’s proposal is intended to solve the problems of under-occupancy and over- occupancy or simply to save money. Even if the changes that she wants are achieved, there will be no saving in the housing benefit budget, on the assumption that many of the people moving into the houses thereby vacated will also be on housing benefit.

[Maria Miller]

It is absolutely not fair that we have 1 million spare bedrooms being paid for by housing benefit. It is not right—many taxpayers would never be able to afford a spare bedroom in their properties—nor is it fair for those living in overcrowded or poor housing conditions, waiting for long periods for the opportunity to live in a home that is decent or that actually reflects the size of their family. I would ask the hon. Lady to consider that.

Amendment 32 would provide an exemption from the social sector size criteria measure for disabled people living in adapted accommodation. The intention is to ensure that where people have significant or extensive adaptations, they do not have to move and have a new property adapted, which would result in additional costs. I assure the House that I fully understand those arguments. I agree that it might not make sense to move someone from their home if they have already had significant adaptations. Replicating such changes would impose unnecessary costs. We are not interested in shifting costs from one budget to another. However, as we previously set out, we cannot take the broad-brush approach that amendment 32 would allow for. The amendment talks about a property that is

“specially adapted or particularly suited to…the needs of that person.”

This means that the provision would be drawn very widely drawn indeed, covering any adaptations.

Some adaptations, such as a handrail in a bath, may be so minor that exempting the tenant on the basis of that adaptation alone would simply not be justifiable. The provision would also cover a property that had been adapted for someone’s past needs, and would require local authorities to exempt those whose accommodation was particularly suited to meet their needs—perhaps those in a ground-floor flat or a property with a limited number of stairs to climb. We do not have the data on how many such cases there are, but it seems likely that many would fall into such a broad category. Again, that would prove very expensive—something that the hon. Member for Westminster North seemed to ignore. It is not clear what evidence would be required or who would be responsible for the decision. The amendment refers to the provision of

“certificates, documents, information or evidence”,

which, as the hon. Member for Westminster North said, also suggests a degree of administrative intervention. She made a valid point in Committee, but I am surprised that she is pushing it even further. I think that many stakeholders would rightly be concerned about the potential cost of her proposals and about the additional burdens such bureaucracy could load on to landlords and others.

The National Housing Federation estimates that about 108,000 tenants in adapted accommodation are likely to be affected by the introduction of the size criteria to restrict housing benefit. The NHF has kindly shared its data with us and I understand that our officials have met the federation since Committee and are continuing to explore the data in some detail. However, as well as looking at the available data, we want to talk to housing providers, but that will take some more time.

Funding for adaptations can come from a number of sources, one of which is the disabled facilities grant. Some 44,000 awards were made in 2009-10 in England and the average award was some £7,000. However, many of these are paid to owner-occupiers, not to those living in social rented houses. Research published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005 showed that about 70% of all adaptations were for less than £1,000 and that only 19% were wholly funded from the disabled facilities grant. In England, the maximum grant is £30,000, but there are discretionary powers to enable local authorities to meet costs in excess of that. Adaptations of this magnitude would be substantial, potentially involving the construction of a single-storey or double-bedroom extension, together perhaps with the installation of a toilet or en-suite shower. Figures from the same source indicate an average cost of about £2,000 for the installation of a stairlift. We will consider the evidence further, but it is important for the House to look at the facts and realise that many of these adaptations are at a much lower level than the hon. Lady indicated in her comments.

As I said in Committee,

“it is not our intention to put something in place that would have a disproportionate impact on disabled people. If someone has had their property adapted because of their disability, it makes no sense to move them to a different property and spend more money on costly adaptations.”

I concluded that a “blanket exemption” was not the best approach and that we would need to consider

“how we can best target the help at people, while keeping in mind the practical difficulties of identifying…where accommodation has been adapted”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 687.]

We acknowledge the concerns that have been highlighted, but this amendment goes much further than was suggested even by the sector itself. I hope that, in the light of my comments, hon. Members will look again at the amendments and agree to withdraw them.