Benefits Uprating
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
There is a danger of missing the central points here, which are that people are better off in work, and we want to go further; that the tax credits are part of a package of measures, and I have listed repeatedly the many things that make work pay; and that our increases in personal tax allowances, for example, will make work pay far more than in the past. The coalition is united on that.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Minister is trumpeting the highest ever increase for pensioners, which I am sure they welcome, but is not the truth that it is so high only because inflation is so high? This is not some generous gift from the Government; it merely allows pensioners to keep up with prices. Further to that, many pensioner groups would point out that the real types of inflation faced by pensioners are actually higher than CPI.
Steve Webb
I do not recall the previous Government ever using something other than inflation or using a different rate for pensioners because of factors such as those the hon. Lady mentions. Sometimes the pensioner rate will be higher and sometimes it will be lower, but on average it will be broadly the same. There was a lot of speculation—she may even have read some of it—that we would not provide a 5.2% increase, that we would break the triple lock, that we would average out the figures or do all sorts of things, but we stuck by our promise and provided a 5.2% increase. The real value of the pension as a share of average earnings—that is what pensions are for: to replace the earnings that people used to have—is higher than in any year under Labour, and I am proud to put my name to that.
Living Standards
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I hope they will attach no credibility if they were our forecasts. We set up the OBR—an independent body that Opposition Members accepted—and its forecasts are about as good as we shall get, so we should give it credibility for at least trying to get the forecasts right. That is a damn sight better than the past 12 years of gerrymandered Treasury figures, not one of which had any credibility.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State quotes from the OBR, so he might like to add that it stated that we came out of recession quicker and that growth had increased by the first part of 2010. The OBR made its predictions before the autumn statement. Last year, it made its predictions before the statement. Its predictions were wrong, because the Government’s policies were wrong. Its dire predictions this year were made before this new set of policies.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am grateful for the intervention, as it allows me to remind the hon. Lady that in looking back at the period in the run-up to and start of the recession the OBR said the depth of boom and bust was greater than was anticipated—by more than 1%. The baseline from which we started, therefore, was much lower, which means, as is seen by the Treasury, that the amount we would have had to borrow would have been more than £100 billion if we had not taken our decisions early on. Labour Members’ posturing about their own position is fundamentally incorrect, and they must recognise that.
The OBR said that the eurozone crisis is
“likely to have contributed to weaker UK growth and business and consumer confidence.”
I know that Labour Members do not like to hear that that is an issue, but it is seen by everybody, not least of which the OBR.
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely, and I would add that we also need to look at how to get businesses growing faster and quicker to employ more people. Having more people working in the private sector is without doubt the best way to raise living standards both for them and for our country, because having more jobs reduces welfare costs. That is hugely important and it is why I was so pleased to hear the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday about fuel duty being frozen and not increased in January. That, combined with the work already done to get rid of the fuel duty escalator, will get prices, although high, lower than they would otherwise have been. That is important—
Brandon Lewis
No, I will not give way again.
The fuel duty measures are important not only to commuters and consumers—parents trying to get their children to school and young people trying to go to work or get to job interviews—all of whom will be better off, but to firms in transport and logistics, which need to be able to invest more in their businesses, to grow them and to create more jobs.
The Government are also working to protect the elderly, who have given so much already. Making sure that they get their winter fuel allowance and the right protection for their pension, as was announced yesterday, means that we are doing all we can, in the circumstances we inherited from the previous Government, to provide for the people who need help the most.
To me, the key is to bring all that together—education and welfare reforms, and the work being done through the Treasury and BIS on taxation and apprenticeships—in an holistic approach. In that way, our country will be able to move forward and we will see the real improvement in living standards that we all want.
Stephen Williams
I have taken two interventions. I will not take any more.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions referred to another reform that the coalition Government will introduce—universal credit—to sweep away the labyrinth of benefits and tax credits that are a legacy of the last Labour Government. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor confirmed that working-age benefits and benefits for disabled people would be increased by the full CPI rate of 5.2%, which puts into the pockets of the poorest in society extra cash that they will spend almost immediately in their local communities.
Stephen Williams
I have taken two interventions.
There was pressure from certain quarters not to make that increase, but the coalition has done the right thing and stuck by its promises to the poorest people in society.
On children, which the motion also covers, tax credits for children are being increased—given all the rhetoric, one would swear they were being cut—by the rate of inflation, 5.2%. In the long term, we want to transform the life chances of the poorest children in society, through the pupil premium and extra child care for two-year-olds announced in the autumn statement.
For young people, the Government are putting millions of pounds behind increasing apprenticeship places. The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) did not want to take my intervention on youth unemployment—
Guto Bebb
Indeed. The problem is that the Labour party believes that the Government should be responsible for ensuring that families have money in their back pockets. I believe that my constituents want to take that responsibility for themselves. Hon. Members should be proud of the fact that this Government are trying to ensure that those who work are better off. My constituents will be able to keep more of their earnings because we are moving to higher personal allowance rates, and I welcome that.
Guto Bebb
I have already taken two interventions.
It is disingenuous of Labour Members to say that they are concerned about the incomes of hard-working families when the Labour party in Wales is unwilling to pass on council tax savings that would be appreciated by people in my constituency and across Wales. They have the cheek to say that the VAT increase implemented by the Government—made necessary by the financial situation that the previous Government left—should be reversed without explaining where the money will come from. Even more bizarre, Labour spokespeople explain in the media that the VAT reduction they propose would save the average family £450. I have no idea where that figure comes from. Such a saving would mean that an average family had £18,000 of disposable income to spend on “VAT-able” goods. I will not come across a family in my constituency with £18,000 of disposable income, let alone one with £18,000 of disposable income to spend on “VAT-able” goods and services.
The inflation figures show that families are being squeezed by increasing food prices. What should the Government do about such increases? Food is subject to VAT at 0%. As a result of high street competition, the prices of goods and services subject to VAT are going down.
We must be honest in this debate. In very difficult circumstances, the Government have attempted to look after the weakest in society. I was proud of the fact that yesterday, despite the changes to the Government’s finances, the triple-lock guarantee on pensions was kept. Average ages in my constituency are the highest among constituencies in Wales, and the Government’s decision will go down very well, compared with the previous Government’s 75p insult to pensioners. We should also be proud of the fact that we are increasing child credits by £390.
More crucial is the fact that, unlike the previous Government, this Government recognise the real threat to family incomes—the increase in fuel prices. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor listened and that, in extremely difficult circumstances, the previous Administration’s proposed 3p increase in fuel duty, scheduled for January, is to be postponed. Fuel prices are high—again, owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Government—but time and again the Government have listened. We had the 1p reduction, and the 5p increase was cancelled.
Robert Flello
The Minister shakes his head, but I am afraid that the figures do not support his position.
The Opposition are wrong to say that the Government’s policies are hurting, not working, because they are not hurting but murdering our communities. They are so punitive that they are destroying our communities. We are not all in this together by any stretch of the imagination. We heard earlier about a list of areas that were among the most vulnerable to the impact of the cuts. Stoke-on-Trent was high up on that list but the Government’s policies actively take money away from places like Stoke-on-Trent to help all-in-it-together places like Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster, which obviously need the money far more than do the people of Stoke-on-Trent.
Then there is this nonsense, this con––let us get it out on the table––of the freeze on council tax. I am sorry but this 2.5% increase in council tax, which is what this nonsense would amount to––
Sheila Gilmore
Does my hon. Friend know that in Scotland we have had five years of the council tax freeze? For some of the poorest people in the community, it has in effect put up things like charges for home care because the freeze pushes the costs out elsewhere.
Amber Rudd
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s initiative to bring in work experience is valuable and I understand that the scheme is going well, with people picking up jobs after their work experience.
Sheila Gilmore
Last year we were told that squeezing down the public sector would cause more private sector jobs to appear. That has not happened. Why should we expect it to get any better?
Amber Rudd
Has not the hon. Lady heard the comments from my colleagues and me about growth in the private sector? Five hundred thousand new private sector jobs have been created in the past year. I dispute her statement that these jobs are not being created in the private sector—they are. But I am in no way complacent. I know that we are in difficult times and that people’s living standards are being squeezed.
The Government are doing an incredibly important job. They are doing their best in difficult times to keep up living standards. Above all, they need to get out of the way of job creation, which is the best way of helping people out of poverty.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening, because I asked him the question when he was speaking, and he said that he opposed cuts for people who are out of work and that he opposed cuts for people who are in work. When I asked him whom that left, he said nothing—he never answers the question—and his Back Benchers said, “The bankers”. He was in the Treasury when, before the general election, the Labour Government introduced a “temporary” bankers’ bonus tax. If Labour thought they were going to win the election, why did they not make the bankers’ bonus tax permanent? It was a one-off, pre-election gimmick, whereas this Government have introduced a banking levy that, every year, will raise more than his temporary banking tax raised in any year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
From what the hon. Gentleman says, I do not think that he is describing our work experience scheme. If he wants to write to me about the individual case, I will look at whether it is due to something that the Government are doing or something else.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Minister comment on reports that even young people with qualifications are being sent for 13 weeks of shelf stacking? What sort of experience is that giving them?
Chris Grayling
I am always very disappointed to hear Members attacking major employers such as our supermarkets. A few months ago I met a man who had been long-term unemployed, who was given a job at one of our major supermarkets and who, within a few months, had graduated to running a department of 20. These are major employers with good opportunities, and we are about giving young people a start in life.
Youth Unemployment
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I want to make a bit progress first.
Let me now deal with the second element of our strategy: how we will deal with long-term youth unemployment, a problem that has become much more acute now that we have stopped massaging the figures and hiding the real picture. I believe that the Work programme will make a real difference to those young people. It has been up and running for four months—
Chris Grayling
I think that the programme is doing good work. I have visited providers throughout the country—
Chris Grayling
I extend an invitation to Members on both sides of the House to visit their local Work programme providers. They can contact my office if necessary to arrange the introduction. I think that they will be impressed by the work that is being done.
Chris Grayling
We will publish details of what is happening in due course, but I can tell the House now that more people have been referred to the Work programme than we originally projected, that it is growing fast, and that a large number of providers are having a great deal of success in getting people into work.
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to one of our providers, EOS in the west midlands, which has just achieved its 1,000th job placement. I congratulate all its staff on their success—
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. The Department for Education is working hard to remedy the failings of our schools system in partnership with my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is working with the FE sector to try to deliver a much better quality of vocational education. That, along with the partnership that now exists between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will ensure that the unemployed are presented with a genuinely joined-up offer of an opportunity to obtain the skills that they need, and it represents a real step change from what we saw in the past.
The third element of the support—
Sheila Gilmore
I am obliged to the Minister for finally noticing me.
Is it not the Minister himself who is trying to have the question of the Work programme both ways? He does not want to publish figures on a national basis, but when he chooses, he will use figures plucked from we know not where to prove that the programme is working. Can he explain exactly how a work programme ever creates any jobs?
Chris Grayling
The point of the Work programme is very straightforward. We have a team of organisations throughout the country helping people to get into work. We pay them if they succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be making a good start. In due course, when I can do so, under national statistics rules, I will publish information for the benefit of the whole House. I want to expose to the whole market who is doing well and who is doing less well, so that there is competitive pressure on organisations to become the lead provider. I will publish those figures as soon as I can according to national statistics rules, and as soon as the programme has been going long enough for them to be reliable.
The third point—
Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady should not be so surprised given that I responded to the question she asked. The IFS projection deals with the tax and the benefits systems, but there are wider issues; we are addressing the pupil premium and other areas, which we think will also have an effect. The IFS projections are based on the premise that absolutely nothing changes, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last report showed that the previous Government were going to miss their 2010 targets before they left office.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
From today, and following the written ministerial statement laid in the House on Friday, employment and support allowance claimants who are eligible to volunteer for the Work programme will be referred to Work programme information sessions. Claimants in the support group will be able to opt in to the sessions. That will form part of the work-related activity component for those in the work-related activity group—WRAG. This is an important step in giving claimants a taste of the support available through the Work programme.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the Secretary of State agree with last week’s comments by the Minister for Housing and Local Government that under-occupiers should not be bullied out of their homes, and will he now withdraw his proposals for social tenants which would result in exactly that?
Mr Duncan Smith
The position of the Housing Minister is correct, and I make it a principle to support him.
Pensions Bill [Lords]
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that in politics, choices are constantly made, and that there are a number of choices that could be made in this case? There are those, for example, who argue that the 50% tax rate should be reduced at an early date, and there are those who argue that the generous tax reliefs given to people on higher rate tax who contribute to pension schemes could be ended, giving substantial savings. Does she agree that there are always choices, and it is not just a question of asking where a particular sum of money will be found?
Jenny Willott
I completely accept that political decisions are a matter of priorities and choices—all hon. Members understand that, because we are all involved in political debates and decisions. As I have said, in an ideal world, I would like the cap to be reduced. However, given the financial circumstances, the Government’s proposal is a compromise that I can accept. I understand that some will be negatively affected, but we have made significant progress. Half a million women and half a million men will benefit from the proposals, which I accept as a positive compromise.
Sheila Gilmore
The concession made by the Government is, of course, a welcome one. The fact that we are saying that it is not enough does not mean that it is not welcome, but I do ask why they have taken so long to arrive at this point. On Second Reading, back in June, not a single Government Back Bencher spoke in favour of the Government’s proposals on the acceleration in women’s pension age. They were clearly unhappy but were prevailed on at the time, it would appear, to vote for Second Reading by being told that some form of transitional arrangement would be forthcoming.
Those of us who were privileged to serve in Committee asked for the transitional arrangements so that we could debate and scrutinise them, which is what a Committee ought to be about, but we were told that they were not ready because they would be very complicated. “By the way,” said the Minister, “Where are your transitional proposals? Why have you not come up with any?” As a new Member, I thought that perhaps it was commonplace for the Opposition to be expected to come up with proposals for the Government because they have not thought them up yet—
Sheila Gilmore
We had amendments. We tabled amendments that were not a million miles away from those that we are proposing today, because we felt that, in the circumstances, a proposal to cap the period of time for which women would have to endure this change was the best thing to do. Our amendments were not supported by either Government party in Committee, but we had clearly made proposals that ranked as transitional, because—lo and behold—four days before this final chance to debate the subject in the House, a proposal was made. It is not some complex transitional arrangement that would take civil servants hours, weeks or months to work out but fairly straightforward and involves capping the period of time. In my view, that proposal could have been made in Committee without any difficulty and it could also have been made at any time over the months that have passed since the Committee stage ended in July.
I suspect that one of the main reasons this rabbit has apparently been pulled out of the hat at the last minute is to prevent any great campaign being restarted for further change and to prevent people asking for more. Like Oliver—most of us nowadays, unlike the cruel people in Victorian workhouses, think that Oliver was right to ask for more—the women who have contacted my colleagues and me over the past few days are still asking for more because they feel that the Government’s proposals remain unfair. They have alleviated the proposals for one group of women but not for all those who are affected and, in my view, those women are right to ask for more.
The Government have been extremely calculating. By not making their announcement until almost as late as possible while still making it in any way credible, they calculated that they would foreshorten the possibility that their Back Benchers might again be contacted by many of their constituents who would argue that the proposals are still not enough. The fact that they have given the shortest amount of time to this very successful campaign is clearly tactical.
In this debate, we always come back to the money question—it happened repeatedly in Committee and in many interventions on Opposition Members today. We are asked where we will get the money and told to come up with a specific statement about where we will find it. That happens not just as regards this proposal but day in, day out—[Interruption.] It is not unreasonable for us to say that we would not start from here. That is not unreasonable because we have a very different view about the choices and the fairness arguments that it is right to make and about how to progress our public finances over the next period.
Another argument that often comes up states that one cannot borrow one’s way out of a crisis or out of debt. It seems we cannot cut our way out of a deficit either, or out of more debt, because public borrowing, far from having come down in the past year and a half, is rising. We would not start from here because our entire economic strategy would be different. Our view—as we said a year and a half ago and as it remains—is that to attempt to reduce the deficit within this Parliament was reckless, that it would not be successful and that it would risk higher unemployment and the stagnation of the economy. That is what is happening. If the economy continues to stagnate, tax revenues will fall with fewer people in work and fewer businesses thriving. Falling tax revenues are a big reason why we have a deficit in the first place. This is not simply about Government spending, as is sometimes suggested.
Tax revenues will fall and benefits payments and other outgoings will rise, and those are very important considerations. In saying that we would not start from here, it is perfectly reasonable for us to make it clear that we would not want to be in the position that the Government seem determined to drive us into.
Jim Shannon
Under the Labour proposals for auto-enrolment for pensions, protection was given, but under the coalition Government’s proposals the same protection is not given as there are conditions and people fall outside them. Does the hon. Lady think that that is another example of the difference between the two sides? Labour gives the option of protection and the coalition does not.
Sheila Gilmore
That certainly is such an example. If we are to give people the opportunity of saving for their pensions into the future, it is important that we take seriously the proposals for auto-enrolment and NEST and build them up in a way to which everybody should give their full support. Although I am sure that the Government have not officially said that they are not giving them their full support, I was struck as I read an article in The Sunday Times a week last Sunday by a suggestion that the Government might be backing off on the speed of the introduction of auto-enrolment. That might have been a piece of kite-flying, as I gather it relates to a piece of work that is being done internally for the Government, which will not be published and which we cannot see, about how to make yet more savings and attempt to grow the economy, but nevertheless that story reached the newspapers. I am sure the Minister will tell us that we have nothing to fear when we reach the relevant part of the debate.
We are constantly asked where we would find the money and, interestingly, despite the comments that Government Members made from a sedentary position a few moments ago, when my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) made suggestions, they were pooh-poohed.
Brandon Lewis
Does the hon. Lady accept that one reason why people were incredulous about some of the suggestions made earlier is that the £11 billion required by Labour is equivalent to the whole budget for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and roughly double that of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
Sheila Gilmore
We are talking about a spending period over 10 years, so it is not equivalent to the budget in a given year. Even in those terms, we are always making choices, and I will not accept lessons from a party with many members who are publicly saying that, as quickly as possible, they want to reduce or take away the 50% tax rate. That is something they are keen to do and that is their choice. They can make the case for it, but if they bring that proposal forward, I for one will certainly oppose it. That is another way of deciding how money is going to be spent and how money is going to be collected—and that is only one example.
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the pension tax relief system, which gives a huge amount of money to people who already have a lot of money. If someone wants to save £100 into their pension pot and they are on 20% tax, in order to get £200 tax relief they have to find £800 from their pocket, but if someone is on 50% tax, they have to find only half the amount they want to save. That is unfair; it is a subsidy to those who already have a lot of income and assets. If at the end of this decade we are finding it difficult to make ends meet and we cannot help the group of women we are talking about, perhaps we should be thinking about that system.
The women who are affected by the measure will be making exactly those comparisons. They know that choices are made in politics and that choices are made by Governments, and they know that it is not impossible for the Government to change their mind on this proposal. They did not campaign for it during the election; indeed one of my hon. Friends has suggested that it was probably drawn up in a great hurry and seemed like a good wheeze at the time, but it puts a particular burden on a group of women many of whom cannot easily afford the changes. I want to emphasise, as several of my colleagues have done, that it should not be assumed that these women have a job and can just go on doing that job, or that they will still be in that job in three, four or five years’ time.
Fiona O’Donnell
Does my hon. Friend agree that those 500,000 women will also be asking, “Why us? Why not the banks or the bankers?” Why are they being made to pay? This is not just a question of economics but a question of right and wrong—and this is clearly wrong.
Sheila Gilmore
I could not have put it better myself.
Another question that the Minister has to answer is whether the Government, in looking for the savings they plan to make by going down this road, have put into the mix the additional costs that might arise in relation to some of these women, some of whom will not be able to work and might claim benefits. Some might claim jobseeker’s allowance for a period and others might claim employment and support allowance if they are in ill health, although some of them will find that those benefits are cut off very quickly in certain circumstances because of other Government proposals. They will then be thrown back to spending any savings they may have made towards retirement.
A woman in her 50s or early 60s who finds herself in that position may not be able to claim benefit for very long. If she has a partner or has savings of any sort she will not be eligible for the means-tested benefits that come in after six months in the case of JSA and that, under Government proposals, will be lost after a year even for people who are unfit to work and are in a work-related activity group. They will find themselves eating up—literally in some cases—their savings to make it through to their postponed retirement date. Of course, at that stage, those women will no doubt have to claim additional top-ups to help their financial situation. I would like to be satisfied that the Government have taken those costs into account. The women themselves will have to meet extra costs, and so will the Government. The proposal is ill-thought-out and there has been a lot of time to rethink it. Like all the women who have been campaigning on this, I am extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to support our amendment tonight.
Steve Webb
It is a pleasure to support Government amendments 13 and 14 and to ask the House to reject amendment 1.
I welcome the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) to his new role. With due deference to the good people of Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, I hope he will forgive me if henceforth I refer to him as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld—I hope they will not take offence at that. As he knows, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), to whom he referred in his speech, enjoyed a meteoric rise by shadowing me for 18 months. I hope to do the same for his career.
Before I move on to the amendments, I want to place on record my appreciation of one of the Department’s officials, Evelyn Arnold, who has worked for the Department for 36 years. I know that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will have enjoyed working alongside her as well. She is stepping down from a legendary career. It is not often that we pay tribute on the record to the officials who make us sound far better informed than we otherwise would, so I would like to do that formally today.
We have heard £1 billion described today as “window dressing”, “a bit of money” and “penny pinching”. That summarises the difference between opposition and government. It reminds us how we came to find ourselves borrowing £150 billion a year when £11 billion, which is the cost of amendment 1, is regarded as small change and not worth worrying too much about. When pressed about where the £11 billion would come from, the Opposition said, in effect, “We’ll find it at some point,” but there was no specific answer.
It was revealing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, “We keep being asked this question.” They keep being asked the question because they keep making unfunded promises. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out that last week’s Opposition amendment cost £20 billion. Today’s would cost another £11 billion and, as the man once said, “Soon you’re talking about serious money.”
The Government amendments are, as the Chair of the Select Committee graciously said, a huge achievement, which is to say that at a time when the public finances are, if anything—because of the global economic situation—under even more pressure than they were at the time of Second Reading back in June, to identify £1 billion is an important sign of the Government’s commitment to fairness in pension reform.
Sheila Gilmore
The Minister wants to make a great deal, and some of his supporters made a great deal, of having extracted that sum from the Treasury, but is he not again mistaking the position? He starts talking about the fact that we are apparently in a very difficult situation, worse than a year ago, and then says, “And we’ve managed to find a billion,” but this is a long-term planning issue—it is not about what has happened in the past year.
Steve Webb
I notice that the hon. Lady dismisses the odd billion here or there again as of no great consequence. We have to make these decisions in the context of the real world. That is the difference between government and opposition. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), who spoke in the debate, said that it would take guts—that was the expression she used—to support an unfunded £11 billion promise, which the Opposition know they will never have to fund and would not implement if in government. That is a very odd definition of “guts”.
Sheila Gilmore
I am glad that the politicians who sat in this House when I was born and was growing up in this country did not decide that the burden of debt was so great that they could not introduce the reforms that brought us the welfare state. It was not their view that they should stop planning, being optimistic and working towards a better future for their children and grandchildren. Despite the national debt being eye-wateringly high, our predecessors in this place were prepared to go ahead with reform and change.
Today, we have heard several speakers, including the Pensions Minister and the Secretary of State, argue that the Opposition are somehow being unfair to future generations, whereas the Government are being fair, because we would burden people with more debt. I think that our predecessors did the right thing for us. In fact, it was so much the right thing that I suspect it created the problem that we now have with longevity. The incredible improvements in life expectancy over the past 50 or 60 years have their roots in the creation of the welfare state.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
My parents, and I suspect the hon. Lady’s parents, had rationing after the war because the situation was so serious, and it was not good for many years after that.
Sheila Gilmore
Rationing, oddly enough, did a lot for people’s health and well-being. For some people in Britain at that time, it did not represent a worse standard of living, although it may have done for others, because during the 1930s many families struggled to put food on their tables because of unemployment.
The point that I was making is that the vision was not constrained by the debt. Things were difficult in many ways in the post-war period, but the Government of the day were nevertheless of the view that one had to plan for the future. I am not a great pessimist about debt. I feel that the whole thing has been grossly misrepresented by Government Members. In the early years of the last decade, the Government reduced the debt. Debt was very high in the period of the last Conservative Government, which people appear to have forgotten. It is not the case that the last Labour Government simply set about building up that debt in some sort of systematic way, to the detriment of future generations, as is suggested.
Of course we have to address how to cease having annual financial deficits, and then in the medium to long term we have to reduce debt. However, at the moment the signs are at the medicine that the coalition parties are applying is not working. The chances are that, the way things are going, we will get to the end of this Parliament with a greater debt. We are already borrowing more than was projected last year, which is indeed quite frightening, but it means that we need to consider what we want to do.
I am not going to make too much of this point, because various people have made it earlier, but all Governments make choices about what they spend money on. We do not believe that the choice to accelerate the pension age rise for women is the right one. There are others that could be made, and we would be making them if we were in government. It has been said in this debate and others that if we cannot immediately identify some cut equivalent to any spending that we suggest is justified and fair, we are somehow being irresponsible. I do not accept that.
I suggested earlier a couple of things that I thought we could do, for example not ending the 50% tax rate, as some Government Members seem keen to do. The idea keeps being floated. We could also consider how we provide tax relief on the pension contributions of people on higher-rate tax earnings, because that is a huge giveaway to those who are already better off. There are a number of choices that we could make. I know that this is not the view of everyone on the Labour Benches, but personally I am not in favour of going ahead with Trident. Some of my colleagues agree with me and some do not, but the important point is that there are always choices.
I was going to say that we had driven people out of the Gallery in this debate, because when I started to speak it was completely empty. However, people have now obviously come in to hear me. People often see the subject of pensions as a bit of a bore and not very exciting, but it is hugely important. I regret greatly that the very good pensions legislation that Barbara Castle introduced, which brought in the state earnings-related pension scheme, was completely destroyed by the last Conservative Government. Had that not happened, many people would be very much better off now.
Although I very much agree with auto-enrolment, I am afraid I do not see it a complete substitute for that legislation. However, we must not move away from auto-enrolment, and I very much welcome the guarantees from the Secretary of State and the Pensions Minister that they will not agree to any delay in its rolling out. Nevertheless, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) gave, I am not in a position to support the Bill tonight.
Sheila Gilmore
In terms of annual expenditure, I do not disagree with that, but the surplus was so high partly because personal taxation levels were considerably higher than they are today.
Steve Baker
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point, because she seems to have pre-empted me—as I rewind on my iPad back to the chart showing taxation. [Interruption.] Between 1940 and 1950 the total level of taxation taken out of the economy rose from about 12% to 40% and it has stayed at about 40% since 1970. The context therefore is very different. The Government can only fund themselves through taxation, borrowing and currency debasement. If I wind forward and have a look at the charts on currency debasement, I can tell her that we have been furiously debasing the currency since 1971, which is the reason for the current mess we are in.
I also point out to the hon. Lady that the Bank for International Settlements has provided a number of charts setting out the debt projections for most of the western world, all of which look catastrophic. For example, in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Aren’t iPads useful! The BIS tells us that on the trajectory we inherited from Labour, our national debt would have reached 500% of gross domestic product by 2040. By then our debt interest payments would have been one quarter—
Disabled Young People (Support)
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for securing this debate because the issue is important. I do not intend to speak at length, but I want to touch on some issues that have come to me as constituency problems. They concern individuals but show some areas of policy where the situation could be improved. One issue concerned a young disabled lad who had just left his special school. He had stayed in that school until he was nearly 20, but to be honest he would probably be described as a three-year-old in a 20-year-old’s body. In many ways he is very happy and friendly, but he has no language. He suffers from Down’s syndrome and is severely autistic so his capacity is obviously limited. I am not an expert, but on meeting him and his mother I could quickly tell that the likelihood of someone like him being able to consider any form of employment was no more probable than my three-year-old grandchild entering employment.
The specific issue raised was his mother’s great concern about what had happened as soon as her son left his special school. When I first saw her, she was in the midst of filling in a form for employment and support allowance—she had to fill that in because he clearly could not, and she found it quite difficult. She also made inquiries to the Department about the possibility of a face-to-face assessment she had been told about. When she made contact, she was told that there were no exceptions, that there would have to be a face-to-face assessment, and that she would have to bring in her son. She explained that one aspect of his condition means that he finds it difficult to go into strange places, to the extent that even with all her powers and being used to the situation, she sometimes cannot make him do it.
As it turned out, I am glad to say that, on the basis of the forms and medical report it received, the DWP decided to award employment and support allowance in the support group without a face-to-face assessment. However, the family—the mother in particular—suffered unnecessary stress because of information she had received previously when her son’s circumstances were not fully taken into account. It occurred to me that such cases could be dealt with more quickly and effectively, and with less stress, if the DWP undertook outreach work in schools where young people are about to leave that form of education. The Department could have carried out its assessment quickly and easily within the school setting because nobody, other than his mother, knew better of what that young man was capable than the school. A great deal of stress and time would have been saved, especially had other forms of appeal become necessary. That is a matter of process where, with a little thought, a more humane system could be adopted.
That young man currently receives DLA, but when we look at the transition that will be made from DLA to the personal independence payment, we must think about the processes involved and the fact that we do not necessarily need to put everybody through a complex process if it is manifestly unnecessary. However much the Minister may feel that it would be useful for many people to go through such a system, there will be some cases in which, on anybody’s analysis, that should not be required. I urge her to give that issue some special thought before we get embroiled in the system and people are given conflicting messages about what is likely to happen. Even at the point of applying for ESA, my constituent was given certain information over the phone by officers in the DWP that increased her stress levels considerably.
Another minor aspect that my constituent raised—I accept this is not new and has been in the system for some time—was the financial position in which the family found themselves. That is obviously an important issue when it comes to purchasing the additional help and assistance that is often necessary outwith the local authority care package. Because my constituent’s son has been placed in a support group, once the first 13 weeks are up, a non-dependant charge will be placed on his mother in respect of housing benefit. She is over 60 and retired, but I think that even in earlier years she found it difficult to remain in employment, given her son’s condition.
At the moment, her son is on the lower rate of ESA because it is still within the 13-week assessment period, although it has been agreed that he will move into the support group and receive the higher rate of ESA. At the end of that period, he will be regarded as a non-dependant, and his mother’s housing benefit and the finances available to the family will in effect be reduced. Since the higher rate of ESA is supposed to meet a family’s additional needs, it seems somewhat perverse to take that support away because the mother is over retirement age, even if she is not working. I accept that that situation is not new, but it is perhaps something we should look at if we seek to improve the situation for families.
The mother said something else that I felt was worth pursuing. She has done a little research on this issue and talked to other people. She felt that, when her son suddenly became an adult for the system, the attitudes towards him and her suddenly became more difficult. That was not just about the benefits issues. She gave me another example. He has been given a care package and a place at a day centre and she was trying to get him used to the idea of that. He had been at a very good special school in Edinburgh, but the day centre is obviously a completely different environment. He was to have transport to go there but, given his particular difficulties with strangers, she asked whether he would have an opportunity to meet beforehand the person who would be doing the transportation. She was told, “No, because he is now an adult.” When he was a child and his arrangements changed, that opportunity was always given, but now she was just told, “No. Under the adult system, we don’t do that sort of thing.”
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Lady for making an incredibly powerful point about disability. The system does not appreciate that, for many disabled people, the nature of their disability means that in terms of age they may be an adult, but in terms of intellectual capacity and their ability to manage things, they are not. The system cannot cope with that. It is a very strong point. Does she agree that more needs to be done and understood in that area?
Sheila Gilmore
I certainly do agree, which is why I was trying to bring out that point. Sometimes there are unintended consequences from the important breakthrough whereby a lot of people with disabilities started to be treated as people with the right to make their own decisions and as an adult, like any other adult. Many people had been campaigning for that for a long time, and for many disabled people it has been a huge breakthrough and beneficial, but there are some people—my constituent and others whom I have come into contact with would fall into this category—for whom it does not work. All it does as far as the family is concerned is make life slightly more difficult. They do not see any purpose in it. Sadly, the young man to whom I have been referring will never grow into adulthood in that sense. Nothing in the field of medicine is likely to change that, so his mother felt that that blinkered view—“This is what we do”—was not helpful. It probably originated from something that was intended to be good, but it has turned out to have a downside.
The mother’s suggestion, which I think we should consider, was that there could almost be a separate category when it comes to the way in which people are treated. Her contention was that in some countries that is what happens—there is more understanding of the different nuances of disability and someone like her son is not treated in exactly the same way as other adults. She was keen to say to me that she thought that local government at all levels should be considering that type of option and trying to improve its practice. I know that there will always be difficulties about definitions and about the point at which those distinctions are made, but if we could apply that perspective and it improved the experience of disabled people—in this case, young disabled people—and their families, it would be beneficial.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is getting to the heart of the reform that we are looking to put in place under the future scheme, which is to make sure that parents such as his constituents get the right support up front from specialist organisations that can help them with their parental relationship post-separation. There is a growing body of evidence to show that that is one of the main determinants of whether people have an effective child maintenance regime in place after separation.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Minister believe that £30 million over four years over the whole of England will be sufficient to achieve her aims? That is the £30 million from the Department for Education which is for all sorts of relationship counselling, not just in relation to the Child Support Agency?
Pensions Bill [Lords]
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
With respect, it never was under the previous Government, and we are not going to change that policy. We have had plenty of discussions on this, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although the previous Government uprated it, the Red Book for that time shows that absolutely no money was allowed thereafter, so it was going to settle back. Let us be absolutely clear about that.
Mr Duncan Smith
Let me make a little more progress and then I will give way.
We have protected other key areas of support for pensioners, including free eye tests, free prescription charges and free TV licences for those aged over 75. Having quickly put incomes on a firmer footing, we have moved to secure older people’s right to work by taking decisive action to phase out the default retirement age, thereby sending a message that age discrimination has no place in modern British society and that older workers have a huge contribution to make.
Those were absolutely the right steps to take as a backdrop to the Bill, but they are just the beginning as we set about reforming our broken retirement system. At its heart, the Bill is about dealing with the challenge that faces the next generation, who will have to pay for their parents’ retirement while footing the bill for a crippling national debt, even before they start thinking about their own pension arrangements. I remind the House that 7 million people currently are not saving enough to have the income they want or expect in retirement. We need to look at the steps we can take to secure their future.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows my connections with the pensions industry over many years.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I entered the House on the same day back in 1992, but this is the first opportunity that I have had to observe the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) in full flow. I have often wondered how he managed to reach such an elevated position in Government in such a short time, and having listened to him today, I am still wondering.
I was staggered by the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, in which he said how proud he was of his Government’s record on pensions. Is he utterly unaware of the destruction of the private pensions system in our country wrought by his former leader, and of the revelation that when the Labour Government were elected in 1997, the National Association of Pension Funds said that the end of dividend tax credit would mean the end of at least half the defined benefit schemes in our country? In fact, we have seen much more than that brought about as a direct result of the Labour Government’s policy. I believe that it was forecast to cost our private pensions system at least £50 billion. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that under a Labour Government a record number of pension funds closed to new business? Is he proud of the record of a Labour Government who gave pensioners an increase of merely pence? I can tell him that people in my constituency remember that event.
Jonathan Evans
I will in a moment—unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, who was not prepared to hear these remarks from me.
Two years ago, the state earnings-related pension scheme was not increased by even one penny by the Labour Government. That is an illustration of how much we can trust Labour on pensions.
Sheila Gilmore
Government Members constantly raise the subject of the 75p pension increase. It is not necessarily a choice that I would have made, but it is the choice that the Labour Government made at the time. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that that increase was introduced during the first couple of years of that Labour Government, when they were following Conservative financial rules.
Jonathan Evans
I am trying to get my head around the idea of Tony Blair standing at the Dispatch Box and taking his instructions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). It is a little bit too difficult for me to accept.
I think it important for us to recognise real concerns that have been raised throughout the country. All Members of Parliament have received many letters, e-mails and other representations relating specifically to the proposals to increase the age at which the state pension kicks in and the impact that that will have on a number of people, not least women.
Jenny Willott
I cannot possibly say what I will do at that stage, because we do not know what shape the Bill will be in. I put the Bill in the safe hands—I am sure—of the Pensions Minister and of colleagues from all parts of the House, who will be able to look at it, try to refine it and send it back to us in the best possible shape. At that point, like all hon. Members, I will be able to decide whether to support it in its entirety.
Sheila Gilmore
If the hon. Lady or other Members table an amendment in Committee on the issues that she says she is concerned about, will she vote for them, as she did not when the Welfare Reform Bill was in Committee?
Jenny Willott
We have no idea who will be on the Committee for the Bill before us, so I cannot possibly comment on what amendments might or might not be tabled or on who might or might not support them.
The Government should, however, think again about these plans and find a way to make them fairer for the worst affected women. We have already heard a number of proposals, and I was pleased that the Secretary of State made it clear that he is open-minded and willing to listen to what options there are. It was important for us to hear that this afternoon.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I would like to open my remarks by reflecting on a tale of two 64-year-olds. My great-grandfather died in Salisbury in 1944. In the words of my grandmother, who is now 90, he was seen at the time as an old man. Next week, my father will turn 64. He will retire having done a manual job for 48 years, and with the expectation of perhaps living, as his father did, to 90 or 92. But we do not know, which goes to the heart of the problem faced by the Government: changing expectations of how long we will live and what to do about it versus the reality that decisions will have to be made with finite resources.
I think that the Government have made an excellent start with this Bill, which addresses three interlocking issues. The first is our ageing population. Only a few weeks ago a lady came to my constituency surgery, sat down in front of me and asked whether I could help her. I said I would do what I could. I really thought it would be about an issue of care for herself or her aged husband, but in fact she wanted to talk about her 99-year-old mother. We have a ticking time bomb that, over the past two generations, Governments of all colours and parties and at all times failed properly to grasp. We cannot go on like that.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a gross generalisation to say that this problem has been ignored? The Bill makes a relatively minor change compared with the major changes proposed in the Turner report and the last Pensions Bill. It is wrong to suggest that this has not been looked at.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I think I will address the thrust of her comments in a few minutes.
The second issue is our active ageing population. Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who pointed out the differences in life expectancy between regions and socio-economic backgrounds, many people expect to lead an active retirement, which is why I welcome the proposal to remove the default retirement age. That will be important in allowing people to do more and to continue working if they wish.
The third problem that the Bill addresses is the lack of saving. It has been said that 7 million people are not saving enough for retirement. The problem is the general sentiment that things will be all right on the night—people expect to be able to sell a property or make some money to put in a pension pot. The Government are facing up to these tough issues, and have realised that that is not a realistic proposition.
I recognise that there is a gap between the long-term solution and the needs of those currently near the pensionable age, and many have acute concerns about what will happen—many Members have referred to the cohort of women who face a particularly tough time. All the indications are that the Government are prepared to acknowledge and address those concerns, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister will have an ingenious solution. However, I would like briefly to draw the House’s attention to a few specific issues.
Despite the welcome introduction of the triple lock, it is clear that pensioners feel a great sense of vulnerability. They know that they have a reasonable expectation of living many years, and are anxious that at a time of low interest rates and little investment income their basic state pension should grow. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposal. I recognise that it will cost a lot of money and will take time to work out, but its general thrust is the right one.
It has to be acknowledged that we have seen massive changes as a result of the increase in life expectancy over the past 50 or 60 years. Life expectancy at 65 has grown upwards of 10 to 15 years over the past two generations, and it would be helpful if the Government set out what we are aiming for. Notionally, we will have parity between genders over the next 10 years, but what are we aiming for? Are we saying that everyone should have a right to expect a fixed number of pensionable years? Are we seeking to address the statistical evidence on demographics and regional differences, or should we recognise, building on the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon North about the level of complexity and a complexity deficit, that we will not be able to make the pensions system sufficiently complex to address every one of those factors?
We have to recognise that we need to do something, particularly about the 33,000 women who face this two-year delay, but it would help if we set out some broader principles. My generation—those under 40—will have to bear a much greater responsibility. I expect to work much longer, although I might have a different job from my father, who worked on the land. We need to send the message so that the next generation and those after know to put more into their pension pots and expect to retire later. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has already mentioned the fact that 10 million people now living will live to 100. That is beyond the realistic expectations or assessments of most people today, but it will impose strains on public finances, health care costs and end-of-life care, which are the issues that we must address. We must not fail to consider my generation and those that come after because they do not seem to matter today.
I welcome the changes to auto-enrolment, but I ask the Government to avoid unnecessary and bureaucratic changes for small business people, especially those in the tourism or retail sectors, where staff turnover is high. Too often justice is not done in the detail to the headlines of Government. We need to ensure that small employers do not bear a disproportionate cost.
The free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes, free television licences for the over-75s and the free winter fuel payments, along with the Government’s commitment to solidify the £25 payment in bad weather, are welcomed by many. Certainly, they are welcomed by the poorest members of my constituency—in Bemerton Heath and the Friary, for example—who rely on the payments year in, year out. I hesitate to say it, however, but is it really fair for those earning more than, say, £50,000 a year in retirement to have that extra money? There is usually a snigger, a gasp and a “Well, we don’t really need it.” However, in the assessment of true fairness, what value accrues to the public purse from expenditure on those people?
I welcome the Bill, which establishes the right direction, but there is still work to be done in certain areas, which I hope I have set out. No Government, past or present, will get everything right. I applaud the work of my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister and wish him well as he unravels these complex issues and develops a pensions system fit, in all respects, for the nation we live in and the number of years we can expect to live.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents about the measures in the Bill. Indeed, I expect that the e-mails are continuing to flood in even as I speak.
The debate today has rightly focused on women’s pensions, but it is important that we also remember the wider context. The majority of people want to plan ahead for their retirement, and they are happy to make their contributions during their working lives in the knowledge that they will reap the benefit when they retire. I am pleased that today’s debate has not had more heat than light, and that we have heard thoughtful contributions. All too often, insulting comments are made to suggest that people who have a decent pension might be getting something for nothing, or getting more than they deserve. I am genuinely glad that we have not heard any of that today.
For many working people brought up to do the right thing, pensions are like deferred wages. They have carefully planned for their later years because they believe that it is right to avoid being a burden on the state or on their families. Unfortunately, however, it is those thrifty, careful planners who are being let down by this Government in the Bill. It is sad that the Government have broken their promise in the coalition agreement not to raise the women’s state pension age to 66 before 2020. As we heard at the beginning of the debate, the coalition agreement clearly stated that the state pension age would rise to 66 but that this would
“not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”
Ministers have performed dramatic U-turns on a whole range of issues, some of which have been welcome, but this one is most unwelcome. The legislation will now accelerate the equalisation for women to 2018, and then increase men’s and women’s state pension ages to 66 by 2020. Anyone reading the coalition agreement when it was published would not have expected that to happen.
Some 2.6 million women will be affected by the Government’s proposals. The state pension age for women born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 will increase by more than 18 months. I should say that I do not have an interest to declare in that regard; the increase will not affect me, but it will affect many women in my constituency. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the measure will affect about 330,000 women. In the most extreme cases, some 33,000 women born between 6 March and 5 April 1954 will see an increase of two years. Those are the points that constituents are contacting me about, because they are worried about the impact that the Bill will have on them.
To put this in context, a woman born in April 1953, as one of my good friends in my constituency was, will be able to get her pension at the age of 62 years 11 months. However, another friend who was born just a year later, in April 1954, will have to wait until she is 66 before she can draw her pension. It is completely understandable that people feel that the measures are unfair. We have heard that comment time and again this afternoon. They are certainly not fair to the 1,200 women in my constituency aged around 56 and 57 who are set to lose the most from these changes, and who will have very little time to prepare or to amend existing plans. Many of them have worked in a series of jobs, raised families and perhaps worked part-time over the years. It is difficult enough for those women on low pay to plan for their retirement without this additional burden being placed on them. I think the most significant part of the issue before us is allowing people time to plan adequately for retirement.
Age UK has highlighted a number of concerns, not simply about the plans, but about the fact that people are not necessarily aware of them. It estimated that about 32% of the women it polled said that, following the Government’s proposals, they did not know when the state pension age would reach 65 for both women and men. Just one in 10 correctly said 2018. Almost half expected equalisation to happen before the planned date, while 9% thought it would be later than planned. As we can see, there is confusion.
In the last few months, despite the public outrage and a campaign supported by different charities and organisations, Members of all parties and affected individuals, it appears that, although Ministers might have begun to listen, they have certainly not come forward with any clear proposals on what they intend to do.
We all understand the simple truth that our society is ageing. The previous Labour Government recognised it and, as we have heard, established the independent Turner commission and built a consensus for change around a number of key areas: linking the basic state pension to earnings, raising the retirement age to 68 by 2046, starting the rise from 2024 and making private pensions opt out instead of opt in, with employers also making a contribution. After trying to build that kind of consensus, it is simply wrong to penalise women who have worked hard for their whole lives and now have no time to plan for their retirement.
As I have said, many women of this generation are already at a disadvantage when it comes to pensions. They have perhaps been denied access to private pension schemes and have had to take career breaks to bring up children. Raising the state pension age for women so rapidly could result in some women currently in their 50s having to work for two years more than they had previously thought. That might not seem a great deal if people are not at the stage of life when they are thinking about planning for retirement, but for people working in an arduous job with long hours or working very early in the morning, as many in the cleaning or hospitality sector have to do, or late at night, that means a lot. The women affected are being made to accommodate the changes within fewer than seven years and it will not be possible for them to make up the time and earnings that they would have wanted. They are at a significant disadvantage. We have also heard that the median pension saving for a 56-year-old woman is just £9,100—almost six times lower than that of a man, which stands at £52,800.
During our debate, we have also heard about the number of people eligible to be auto-enrolled in a pension scheme. I have concerns about that. I was a bit disappointed to hear some of the attacks on the shadow Secretary of State when he raised these issues. We all need to hear the Minister respond to the issues raised. I am concerned that limiting the coverage of the scheme could exclude women disproportionately. It has been estimated that 7 million people are not saving enough to ensure an adequate income for their retirement. We have heard genuine concern about that from Members of all parties. That is why there was cross-party consensus to introduce auto-enrolment.
Combined with a minimum employer contribution and the creation of a pension scheme that could be used by any employer, the principles behind the legislation could be expected to lead to a step change in the level of participation in pension saving. Concerns have been expressed today, however, that the Government are proceeding with the introduction of auto-enrolment in a way that will limit its scope, including raising the salary level at which someone is automatically enrolled from about £5,000 to about £7,500. The Government predict that up to 600,000 fewer people will be automatically enrolled in a pension scheme as a result—as I have said, disproportionately affecting women.
My concerns about that could be summed up briefly. I am worried that this will rise in line with the income tax threshold, and therefore looks set to increase to £10,000 over the next few years—excluding a considerable number of people who will be earning less. Compared to Labour’s original plans, it will exclude in the region of 1.5 million to 2 million people, of whom 1 million to 1.5 million would be women. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points later. Having a three-month waiting period before auto-enrolment could mean 500,000 fewer people automatically enrolling in a pension scheme, which does not improve the position on encouraging people to save for the longer term.
As other Members have made clear, there are also concerns about people who work in call centres, and perhaps others in the retail and the hospitality sector, as they might work a relatively low number of hours at various points in their careers. Some people might have two or three different jobs to hold down, each of which might be under the threshold, but not when they are viewed cumulatively.
Sheila Gilmore
Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there seems to be a mismatch here in respect of this Department’s policies? Just last week and all through the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, we heard great things about the importance of mini-jobs and the people who undertake them. Such people sometimes have more than one mini-job. At the same time, however, that does not seem to have been read across into this Bill.
Nick Boles
No, I will not give way for the moment; I am in the middle of replying to the previous intervention. The Opposition are perpetrating the grand deceit that there is anything fair about pretending to the British people that this country is not poorer than it was; that it is not permanently poorer than we thought we would be in each of the next 20 years.
The point about what happened in the past three years is that the economy suffered a permanent drop. We can grow again from that drop—we can again achieve higher living standards—but we will never have back the growth that we lost in the past 10 years, and it is not fair to anyone to argue that this or any Government can proceed as if no sacrifices need to be made, no losses need to be felt and there can be an entirely victimless process of recovering from the terrible economic situation that the Government of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) helped to create.
Sheila Gilmore
Is the hon. Gentleman not perpetrating the debating technique of erecting a straw man in order to knock him down? Perhaps he would like to consider the terms of the Bill that we are discussing.
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Lady, but I fear that this man is a lot more substantial than just straw—even if the Leader of the Opposition sometimes appears to be exactly the straw man she refers to. The entire membership of the Labour party is signed up to the deceitful argument that we can correct this budget deficit, restore sustainability to our public finances and rescue this country from decline without taking painful decisions that cause people loss. That very same argument has been made in every single one of these debates—in the debates about education maintenance allowance, about tuition fees and about all the other benefit changes. We are hearing that argument here again tonight. This is not really an argument about pensions, but one about the future of this country, and the argument used by the Opposition is always exactly the same.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
We often hear in pensions debates about the UK having very poor pension provision, but I suggest that one reason for that is that there has been a lack of consensus and consistency over the years. We have heard a great deal about the failure to tackle problems, but I would like to take Members back to the state earnings-related pension scheme, introduced by Barbara Castle in 1978. It meant that everyone who was paying national insurance contributions and was not already in an occupational pension scheme would be in a compulsory earnings-related scheme. The pension reached maturity in 20 years, so it was particularly attractive to women and to anyone with an interrupted career pattern. The problem was known about as long ago as then, so people who think that they have discovered it recently are wrong.
By the late 1990s there should have been many more people benefiting from that pension provision. To my mind it was one of the best things done by the Callaghan Government. They have been much maligned, but not only did they introduce that pension provision, but income inequality was at its lowest in the whole post-war period during their years. Government Members who say that they are keen to reduce income inequalities might do well to take a history lesson from that Government.
What happened to SERPS? It was torn up by the Thatcher Government in the name of giving people choice. I appreciate that it is argued that SERPS would have proved increasingly expensive and that we would have had to amend it, but how much better to be in a position to amend something than to have to start again from scratch. That is what happened at the end of the previous Conservative Government’s time in office.
When the Thatcher Government decided to tear up SERPS, the possibility of its proving too expensive was not given as a reason. They advanced the ideological reason of giving people the choice to opt out of state provision and take up some form of personal pension. Anyone who took up one of those personal pensions knows that the level of provision was extremely poor. We have heard a great deal about the mis-selling of pensions, but even if they were not mis-sold, the quality of those personal pensions was not good. I speak as someone who knows, not because I chose to opt out but because, as a partner in a legal firm, I was treated as self-employed and therefore could no longer be part of SERPS—I wish I could have been. Consequently, I took out a couple of personal pensions, and I can tell hon. Members that the provision is poor—almost to the point where I might as well have put the money under the bed. Certainly, I might as well have put it into a savings account.
Giving people that freedom of choice had other disadvantages. I well remember that my secretary at the time the change was made was of an age when she could opt out, and she did. I know that she did not opt into a personal pension scheme. Her rationale was, “I don’t have a very high income. I’ve got two children in the early teenage years, who are becoming increasingly expensive. Extra money in my pocket now is valuable to me.” I can understand her making that choice, but I am sure that, 20 years on, she now regrets it. I am therefore extremely supportive of enabling people to be included in pension schemes. It may be directive, bossy and even what the previous Conservative Government called the nanny state, but it ensures that people make provision for their retirement.
I am particularly disappointed that the Government have decided to change the income level at which auto-enrolment comes into force. They have increased it from the amount that was agreed through consensus to the level at which people begin to pay income tax. Ministers seemed to say during the debate that it is not inevitable that the level will continue to rise in line with whatever happens to income tax and income tax allowances. However, if that is the case, why tie it to income tax in the first place? It creates a suspicion that that will continue to happen. If that is not the case, we need to be clear about it.
We have heard a great deal in the debate about the long term. I started by talking about consensus and what went wrong when it was previously torn up. It is regrettable that the Bill risks tearing up another consensus—on the previous Government’s work on the back of the Turner report and the pensions legislation that was then introduced—by including an extremely contentious provision, which did not need to be in the measure were it not for a desire to make savings as part of the comprehensive spending review. Government Members have asked us not to oppose Second Reading because we are dealing with generalities. If the provision on women’s pension age had not been in the Bill, we would not have debated the measure for so long.
Despite what some Members have suggested, the Bill does not completely recast the pension system and provide for a solid and sustainable future. In many ways, it is a relatively minor amending measure, which alters some provisions from previous pensions legislation. Without the specific provision about women, we would largely be in agreement. I have already said why I am not entirely happy about the provisions on auto-enrolment, which change previous legislation, but nevertheless the particular provision on women’s pension age has caused the difficulties about which we have heard. The Bill is objectionable not just because the pension age is increasing, but because a double change over a short period affects the same cohort of women.
The proposals have been under discussion and the subject of campaigning over at least the past six months—we are not debating recent proposals. Ministers have hinted today that they might be prepared to make changes in due course to take account of people’s concerns, but those concerns have been raised ever since the proposals were made. The Bill has been through the House of Lords, when there was an opportunity to make the adjustments that Ministers have appeared to suggest today. Did that happen? No, it did not. There was no suggestion at that stage that the Government were willing to make any such changes.
We could have held today’s debate knowing what changes the Government are considering. Perhaps in his closing speech the Minister will say what changes he is prepared to make to the part of the Bill dealing with pension age. He should show not just that the Government are making another attempt to ensure that the coalition partners go through the Division Lobby together, but that he has been listening, not only to his coalition partners and the Opposition, but more importantly to the many women who have campaigned and given clear reasons why they want the Government to change their mind. If the Minister is thinking of changing the proposals, he owes it to those women to tell them how. He has the opportunity to do so in his closing speech.
Priti Patel
The previous Labour Government had the perfect opportunity to address this issue. Opposition Members say that their issue is with the speed, but this is now about having a sustainable pensions system, as we simply cannot carry on as we are, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are plausible. The status quo is not an option.
Priti Patel
I am going to close my remarks shortly, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not take her intervention.
I want to touch briefly on auto-enrolment. We know that millions of people are not putting aside anywhere near enough money for their retirement. I was previously an employer, including of young graduates. On starting their working lives, they do not think about retirement, saving for their pensions or anything of that nature. Although auto-enrolment was started by the previous Government, it is a good thing, and we really have to get on with it. This is about a culture change to people’s understanding of the need to save, and of how much they need to save, for their retirement. It is not about one lump sum. It is about what they expect to get out of retirement and their potential quality of life.
To conclude, I think that these reforms are welcome and long overdue. The changes to the state pension age and auto-enrolment will lead almost to a cultural revolution and a transformation of the pensions and savings culture in our society. That is a welcome step forward.
Steve Webb
As I have said, I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman in an open and constructive way. I suspect that wishing away the technical problems might be more difficult than he imagines, but I am happy to have that dialogue with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) who chairs the all-party group on occupational pensions—
Steve Webb
As I have five minutes to respond, I had better not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I am grateful to him for that. He raised the issue of intergenerational fairness, which goes to the heart of the Bill. It is why we need to progress with it and debate it through the House. A number of our constituents who have written to us about the Bill imagine that this is the only chance we get to debate it. We will be in Committee right up to the final day before the summer recess, I am delighted to say, and we will return to it on Report, so there is ample opportunity to debate and discuss the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) raised the issue of manual labourers. I accept that that is an important point, which needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) quite properly raised the issue of long-term principles. I hope he will respond to our Green Paper consultation, which looks specifically at age 67 and 68, mechanisms and processes. Those are the principal issues that we are trying to raise.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who tabled the relevant early-day motion, asked about transfers into NEST and so on. As she knows, the idea of NEST was to get the thing going and to cater particularly for people who might not otherwise have access to a pension. Once that roll-out is complete in 2017, the whole system will be reviewed and the issue of transfers-in will be looked at as part of that review, so I can give her that assurance.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) supported the Bill and said that good governance is about taking decisions in the long-term interests of our country, which is what the Bill does. I thank him for that. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) raised issues about auto-enrolment. I have already pointed out why we are doing it and the balance that we are trying to strike. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) spoke about the fragility of private sector pensions. I agree with him. That is why it is vital that we move ahead with the Bill and make auto-enrolment work, rather than delaying it, as the Opposition want.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked whether people will be able to work in their later years. I can tell her that women are already, on average, leaving the labour market after state pension age. In 2004 women on average left the labour market at 61.6 years. In the past six years that has gone up by more than a year, so there are already trends of longer working lives. We need to build on them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said that other countries are following a different path. I can tell him that they are not. Other countries are raising their state pension ages and in some cases raising them faster than we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) supported many aspects of the reforms. I congratulate him on a very well researched contribution. I am grateful to him for the principles that he set out—simplicity and making auto-enrolment work—and I note his comments about the state pension age changes.
On that issue, which has clearly been the focal point of the debate, let me sum up the position. We heard a number of hon. Members raise their concerns about the state pension age. The Government’s position is clear. We are not simply living longer; we are living longer at a faster rate. The improvement of five years in life expectancy at pension age took 70 years between 1920 and 1990. The next similar improvement happened in 20 years. The improvement in longevity is like a runaway train. We must address that. Those who vote against Second Reading are not just deficit deniers, but longevity deniers. They need to recognise the real changes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his characteristically resolute way, confirmed that the Government believe that we need to equalise more rapidly and reach age 66 as the retirement age more rapidly, but he also said that he recognised that we need to implement that fairly and manage the transition smoothly. He went on to say that he heard the specific concerns about a relatively small number of women and that he was willing to work to get the transition right. I am committed to doing the same, together with him.
If the House were to reject the Bill tonight, those who vote against must tell us where £30 billion will come from, how they will make auto-enrolment work and why judges should not have to pay for their pensions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Welfare Reform Bill
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
Amendment 53 relates to the abolition of the social fund and addresses a number of the concerns that Members raised on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Government propose to abolish key elements of the social fund—the community care grants and the crisis loans—and to replace them with support through local authorities. The social fund, particularly the crisis loan, is critical to many Members in representing their constituents. That is the case not only in my constituency but across the country. These mechanisms support people in desperate need and at key times in their lives, and they are safety nets when people are facing essential expenditure that they cannot meet. My concern is that many organisations have made representations to the Government, Committee members and Members of the House urging that the social fund should not be abolished without robust and effective alternatives put in its place. The proposal should certainly be fully explored and tested before any change is made.
Social funds have been critical. The numbers of recipients of social funds and of applications demonstrate their importance. In 2009-10, there were 640,000 applications for community care grants, 3.64 million for crisis loans and 1.69 million for budgeting loans. Some 263,000 CCGs were awarded, 2.7 million crisis loans were awarded, and 1.2 million budgeting loans were awarded, so the expenditure was significant. They have a significant impact on individuals’ lives and in tackling poverty across the country. Some £139 million was spent on CCGs, £109 million net was spent on crisis loans, and £482 million gross on budgeting loans. This is therefore a large-scale activity that is vital to the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society. Even at this level of expenditure, however, the Public Accounts Committee concluded, having investigated CCGs, that only 32% of legitimate demand was being met.
I am extremely pleased that the Department for Work and Pensions is retaining budgeting loans and advance loans for alignment payments. However, I and many Members and voluntary organisations working in this field are unclear about what will replace the crisis loans and the CCGs. I am gravely concerned about the proposals to transfer responsibility to local authorities, which will be expected to design their own schemes for emergency support. Those responsibilities are being transferred at a time when local authority budgets are being cut. My understanding is that the funding will not be ring-fenced. In their consultation, the Government suggested that local authorities could also meet some of the demands with payments in kind—food parcels and second-hand furniture were mentioned as examples. I am also concerned that without clear guidance councils might be able unilaterally to introduce and force new conditions on those applying for emergency support.
I tabled the amendment because of the real danger that we will now be faced with numerous schemes being developed by local authorities, and that vulnerable people will lose this essential support. I am concerned that if the funding to local authorities is not ring-fenced, it will be diverted to other priorities.
Let me give the example of what happened to the playbuilder grant in my area. I chair the local play association, which I also helped to set up. When the ring fence was lifted, the Government initially sought to withdraw elements of the second year of the scheme. I am grateful that the Secretary of State for Education reinstated them and returned significant amounts to local authorities, which was a real breakthrough. However, because the money was not ring-fenced, much of it unfortunately appears to have been diverted into other areas of council expenditure, rather than going to improve play for children. That is just one example, from the most recent period, of funds that were not ring-fenced being allocated to local authorities and then spent for purposes other than those that the Government had intended. The Minister has agreed that allocations will be based on social fund spending, which will be regularly reviewed and the data updated. However, my concern is that if money is not ring-fenced in the first stages, it will be creamed off in the early years to be spent elsewhere.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
We in Scotland have had four years’ experience of the removal of ring-fencing, supposedly to free up local authorities. I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s comments on our experience. Now that the ring fence has been removed, it is difficult to track what is happening to funds such as the supporting people fund, which give people valuable low-level support.
John McDonnell
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me: I forgot about the experience in Scotland. What she describes is a classic example of what could happen. I am quite fearful, because I have been a councillor and I know about the pressures on local authorities when they expend their resources. If there are no clear guidelines or statutory duties placed on the authorities, elements of expenditure that the Government might have allocated with the best of intentions might not be spent in the way that the Government would want.
I am fearful that if people lose access to the scale of emergency support they currently draw on, their alternative will be to go to higher-cost lenders such as loan sharks, thereby falling into greater debt. Even in advance of the reforms, we have already had a number of pawnbrokers opening up in the town centre in my area, with the local citizens advice bureau reporting increased evidence of the use of loans from loan sharks. A number of organisations have expressed their concern that having numerous different local schemes could mean that we end up with—I do not like this phrase—a postcode lottery of access to life’s necessities, as a result of the loans not being distributed coherently and consistently. I am also concerned that local authorities seem not to have been given any guidelines or directives about establishing an appeals mechanism. Unless an appeals mechanism is set up, claimants will not have the security of being able to challenge decisions made locally.
I would therefore urge the Government not to abolish or wind down the social fund without giving an absolutely clear commitment about what will replace it. If emergency support is to be localised, we need strong, unambiguous and extremely clear statutory duties placed on local authorities to support vulnerable people, and for those duties to be attached specifically to such funding. I urge the Government to think again about ring-fencing, so that the money cannot be diverted away from the poor. The social fund commissioner proposed that the Government consider establishing national criteria for the schemes to be drawn up by local authorities, to ensure consistency in the use of local discretion. It would still be possible to reflect local circumstances, but national parameters would be set on the use of that discretion. I am also concerned that the devolution of emergency support services might create high administrative costs—this has been mentioned by a number of organisations, including Age UK and the Disability Alliance—which might divert funds away from provision for the poorest.
Sheila Gilmore
Is it not also the case that many of the arrangements for people to purchase second-hand furniture are increasingly set up as social enterprises, which are intended to recoup money and make a working profit to go back into the business, so they will charge people, albeit less than for new goods, as otherwise their enterprise will not work? In any event, if this were going to be free, it would have to be heavily subsidised by someone.
Ms Buck
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government’s mindset is an old-fashioned one. There is an excellent case for making better use of recycled goods as a commercial or social enterprise facility, but there is also a strong empowerment argument for letting individuals make their own choices with cash at their disposal to meet their needs appropriately. As my hon. Friend rightly says, in many cases, the vision we used to have of a charitable sector simply opening a warehouse into which people can go to choose whatever donated goods might be available no longer applies.
Maria Miller
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take many interventions, because I am very conscious of the time and of the desire of Opposition Front Benchers to get through the selection list. Many questions have already been asked and I will deal with them as I go through my remarks.
Before I respond to the issues that have been raised, I will set out the three basic principles that are central to our reform. The personal independence payment will provide support for long-term needs. It is one of a wide range of benefits that are on offer. It will be based on an assessment of the impact of a health condition on an individual and their ability to lead an independent life, rather than just on the condition. Above all, it will be fair.
Amendment 43 seeks to exclude individuals from the face-to-face consultations in the new assessment process for PIP. DLA relies on a self-assessment form and I will not go through the details of why that does not work. One of my constituents had to take a four-hour course to learn how to fill out the DLA form, which shows its ineffectiveness. One of our key proposals to ensure that the benefit has a more consistent and transparent assessment is that most people will have a face-to-face consultation with a trained independent assessor. The consultation will allow the individual to play an active part in the process, rather than passively filling in a form, and put across their views on how their health condition or impairment affects their everyday life.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the assessment process is sensitive and proportionate. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has a great deal of expertise in that area from his work on the work capability assessment. Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to PIP, some people will not be required to attend a face-to-face consultation. I was clear about that in Committee and I reiterate it now. For such people, the assessment will be carried out on the basis of evidence that has already been gathered. Such decisions will be at the discretion of the individual triaging the assessment as it goes through.
Amendment 43 would undermine one of the key principles of PIP. It would effectively label people by health condition or impairment, rather than treat them as individuals. The disability organisations with which I am working day in, day out on the development of the assessment and the overall benefit would feel that to be a step back, not a step forward. The impact of a condition can vary greatly. Under the amendment, somebody with a severe mental impairment would not have to have a face-to-face assessment. That is a broad category, which covers a wide range of conditions that affect people in many ways. Although we accept that not everybody who has a severe mental impairment will have to undergo a face-to-face consultation, for others it will make a great deal of sense. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
I deal now with amendments 44 to 47, 76 and 77. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing that PIP is a long-term disability benefit, and that there should be an expectation that there will be limitations for a period of not less than 12 months. The proposed qualifying period will allow us carefully to assess someone’s ability to carry out a range of activities once their condition has settled down and potentially once the effects of treatment and rehabilitation have begun. PIP will be a valuable, universal, tax-free benefit—that is carried forward from DLA—and it will be paid irrespective of whether a person is in or out of work. I emphasise that point for the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who conflated it with an out-of-work benefit. It is our view that the additional financial support that it brings should start only once other support mechanisms have played their part and once the financial burden becomes onerous for an individual over the long term, regardless of their income.
I can reassure Members that the Government have been listening to the arguments regarding the return to a three-month qualifying period, and we will continue to listen and talk regularly to disabled people and their representative organisations. We recognise that for some people there may be additional financial burdens at the outset, but we have to consider the matter within the ambit of the wide range of other support that is already available during the early months.
Maria Miller
Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I do not give way now? Perhaps if I do not cover her point, she can intervene on me later.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South has tabled amendments 76 and 77, about how we treat fluctuating conditions. That is absolutely an important part of ensuring that we have a successful assessment. The use of the term “every time” in the Bill has caused some concern, I believe unnecessarily. I hope that I can allay her concerns about it.
Our approach will be to have two main components to the assessment. First, we will consider whether an individual is able to carry out an activity, and whether they are able to do so reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner. If they cannot, it will be considered that they cannot complete that activity at all.
Secondly, the assessment will not be a snapshot of any one day, as I am sure the hon. Lady would expect. It will consider an individual’s ability to carry out activities over a period of time—we suggest a year. It will consider impacts that apply for the majority of the time. We will determine whether somebody has met the required period condition by considering whether they would be likely to meet the requirements of the assessment if they were assessed at any point over the period in question, which will effectively create hypothetical assessments across that period. We envisage that the assessment will not consider the effects of a disability on just one day, because the same principle will apply across the whole period. That means that we will consider an extended period of time, and that we will still apply the “majority of time” test. I think she will be reassured by that. As such, individuals will be able to meet the required condition even if their disability fluctuates over the specified period. We intend to include the treatment of fluctuating conditions in the next iteration of the assessment regulations, which is due to be published in the autumn. I hope that provides some reassurance.
I turn to amendments 66, 41 and 42. We have already announced that we will not remove the mobility component of DLA from people in residential care from 2012, as originally planned. We have also said that we will re-examine its position within the personal independence payment, which is precisely what we are doing. When that work is complete we will make a final decision, in the context of the full reform of DLA and the introduction of PIP.
Maria Miller
Perhaps the hon. Lady can let me finish and see whether I have covered her point.
We will treat care home residents in exactly the same way as any other recipient of DLA. The views that have been expressed during, and in the lead-up to, today’s debate have been vigorous and made people’s positions clear. That is why we are not introducing the change in 2012 and are undertaking a review of the practical issues on the ground. We will not produce a review report, because we are not undertaking an official review. We are simply collecting information about the implementation of the policy at the moment, as I am sure Labour Members did when they were in government to inform their policy decisions.
Sheila Gilmore
It is very important that the Minister clarifies exactly what is intended. Does she still intend at some point, perhaps after a review or some information gathering, to treat the people affected as a group and decide whether they are entitled to the benefit, or will each individual case be assessed? If it is the latter, how will the information be gathered?
Maria Miller
If the hon. Lady will listen to my full remarks, I hope that she will be satisfied. We have made it clear that we want to remove overlaps, and that we do not ever want to limit severely disabled people’s ability to get out and about, so we will not do what she describes.
Mr Reid
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that—I wish that every time I spoke for a minute I could bring about a change in Government policy.
In the few minutes remaining, I want to talk about the proposal not to pay any PIP for the first six months. What concerns me is that that will impact severely on people who have a sudden onset of a very disabling condition, such as a stroke, cancer or the loss of a limb. Thankfully, that happens only to a relatively small number of people of working age, which means that any savings the Government would make would be very small. However, for someone in that unfortunate position the first six months is often when the costs are greatest. They and their families have to adjust to the sudden reality of coping with a disability. During those months, people are often faced with extra costs such as special aids, adaptations to their homes or frequent trips to a specialist hospital that might be far from where they live. Adaptations to the home are up-front costs that need to be paid within the first six months. Depending on their condition, those people might face many other costs.
Another relevant issue is that until PIP is awarded, other benefits such as carer’s allowance are not available. Therefore, I urge the Government to look carefully at ways of taking those circumstances into account and see whether they can find a way to make financial help available for people in that position so that they can cope with the extra costs they face in the six months after the onset of the condition.
Sheila Gilmore
I want to speak briefly to the question of three and six months, because the Government have said that people will be able to find other forms of assistance. What they mean by that is means-tested assistance, but many people will not qualify for it, because their partner might earn as little as £7,500 a year or have—
Mr Duncan Smith
I have always said that the door is open to everybody to discuss the effects and how some of them can be ameliorated—or not, depending on what the issues are. The answer is therefore yes—as a London MP, I should join that delegation too—although I still believe that we have the right policy, because it is about balancing fairness for those hard-working people who pay their taxes who often feel that those beyond work are not working themselves.
Sheila Gilmore
The Secretary of State wishes to present the Bill as being about people who are workless or feckless, but hard-working taxpayers who suddenly fall ill and are unable to claim the personal independence payment for six months could well be excluded from benefits because they have been savers. Is that fair?
Mr Duncan Smith
If the hon. Lady had looked at what the cap covers, she would know that those on tax credit will be exempt, as will those on DLA, widows and others who are in difficulties. The cap is about those who we believe should be able to go to work but are not doing so. Of course, this would just be all stick if it were not for the fact that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) had recently introduced the biggest back-to-work programme this country has ever seen, to support those in greatest difficulty. Universal credit is about helping to improve people’s incomes when we get them back into work with a bigger incentive. We are striking a fair balance by doing all that while also placing some expectations on those who are waiting to go to work.
That is also the point of the next bit, which is about conditionality and sanctions. The Bill places a level of responsibility back into the system by strengthening our conditionality and sanctions regime and requiring all claimants to accept a claimant commitment setting out their individual responsibilities—a sort of contract that will enable them to understand that they have certain obligations and that there are certain things that we are obligated to do for them. That is fair. Many claimants I have spoken to out there are completely confused about what they should or should not be doing.
When those responsibilities are not met, we will have the power to apply a robust set of sanctions, which will be made clear to the claimant at the beginning. Opposition Front Bench who were in the previous Government will know from going round jobcentres that claimants often still profess, even at the last moment, to having no knowledge of the fact that they will face sanctions if they do not comply. So we are going to let them know early exactly what the sanctions will be. As with universal credit, they will then have a clearer understanding of what they are meant to be doing.
The next area, which we have dealt with in some detail, involves the personal independence payment. We are bringing more responsibility to the system, but I believe that we are also improving support for those who are able to work and for those who are not. Disability support is an issue. The Bill makes critical changes to the system, and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) made a sterling effort to explain them in Committee and on Report.
The changes to the current system of disability support will ensure that disability living allowance is no longer awarded on the basis of subjective and inconsistent decisions. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that this is a bold attempt to bring this area of benefit up to date and to ensure that those who are not getting what they should will do so, and that those, however many there are, who are getting too much or not the right amount will get that adjusted as well. The truth is that this will be based on their ability to live their lives. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the checks involved. The DLA will be replaced in total by a personal independence payment, which will be based, for the first time, on regular and objective assessments of need.
This brings me to perhaps the biggest thing in the Bill: universal credit. This lies at the heart of all our reforms. It involves the principle that it should no longer be possible for people to be better off on benefits than in work, or for people to fear moving into work. I say “fear” because people are often concerned because they simply cannot tell whether they will be better off or worse off in work. No longer are we going to try to pick the number of hours that somebody should be working; rather, we will say to them, “You must make that choice, in line with work, relevant to your caring responsibilities and all the other issues that affect you.” This is a bold reform to help people to improve their chances and give them the assistance they need. That goes alongside the Work programme, as I said earlier, which will support all those people who are trying desperately to make the best of their difficult conditions and get back to work.